JOURNN. OF - Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry

• • 

FACULTY WORKLOAD: 

Assessing a Definition, 

Its Relative Elements, 

and Faculty Load Formulas 

JOURNN. OF 

Volume 8, Number 1 

Summer 1982 

: • 

'iTJ 

') 

N* 

•*P* 

1 

J 

i 

\ 

-** 

GO'S ANNUAL REPORT 1981-82

ASSOCIATION of SCHOOLS and COLLEGES of OPTOMETRY 

The Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry (ASCO) represents the professional programs 

of optometric education in the United States and Canada. ASCO is a non-profit, tax-exempt professional 

educational association with national headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

BOARD 

OF 

DIRECTORS 

Or Bwd 13. Banwell 

President 

Illinois College nf Optometry 

Chicago. Illinois 

Dr. Gordon G. Heath, Dean 

Indiana University 

School of Optometry 

Bloomington, Indiana 

Dr. Richard L. Hopping. Pres 

Southern California College 

of Optometry 

Fullerton, California 

Dr. F. Dow Smith, Pres. 

The New-England College of 

Optometry 

Boston. Massachusetts 

Dr. Jack W. Bennett, Dean 

Ferris State College 

College of Optometry 

Bid Rapids, Michigan 

Dr. Willard Bleything, Dean 

Pacific University 


Forest Grove, Oregon 

Dr. Melvin D. Wolfberg, Pres. 

Pennsylvania College of 


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Dr. Spurgeon B. Eure, President 

Southern College of Optometry 

Memphis. Tennessee 

Dr. Edward R. Johnston. Pres. 

State University of New York 


New York, New York 

Dr. Frederick W. Hebbard. Dean 

Ohio State University 


Columbus. Ohio 

Dr. Henry B. Peters, Dean 

University of Alabama 


Birmingham. Alabama 

Dr. Jay M. Enoch, Dean 

University of California 


Berkeley. California 

Dr. William R. Baldwin, Dean 

University of Houston 


Houston, Texas 

Lee W. Smith 

Executive Director. ASCO 

t 

President 

Willard B. Bleything, O.D., M.S. 

Dean, Pacific University 


President-Elect 

Richard L. Hopping, O.D. 

President, Southern California 


i 

Editorial Council 

John F. Amos, O.D., Chairman 

University of Alabama in Birmingham 


Henry W. Hofstetter, O.D., Ph.D. 



Penelope Kegel-Flom, Ph.D. 



Thomas L. Lewis, O.D., Ph.D. 

Pennsylvania College of Optometry 

Robert Rosenberg, O.D. 


State College of Optometry 

Vice-President 

Edward R. Johnston, O.D., M.P.A. 

President, State University of New York 


,Se< rruvr-Treijburer 

Jack W. Bennett, O.D. 

Dean, Ferris State College 

College of Optometry

Table of Contents 

Summer, 1982 

Volume 8, Number 1 

ISSN 0098-6917 

JOURNAL OF 

OPTON\ETRIC 

EDUCATION 

Official Publication of the Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry 

On the Workload of Faculty 

WillardB. Bleything, O.D., M.S. 

An increasing need for higher education to address the issue of faculty load, particularly with regard to health professions 

education, has prompted this comprehensive review of the literature on the subject under three separate discussion topics. 

Part I: Defining Faculty Workload 

Teaching effectiveness, time analysis of work, equity of load, cost analysis, 

and accountability all must be taken into account when defining faculty workload 

Part II: Elements of Faculty Workload and Their Relative Weightings 

A single indicator as classroom instruction presents a considrably limited 

view of faculty workload—several other indicators, such as research and public service, 

are needed to present a complete view. 

Part III: Faculty Load Formulas 

A number of formulas have been attempted to produce a precise index of 

faculty workload; these are explored in an effort to find a measurable balance 

of a faculty member's responsibilities. 

ASCO Annual Report, 1981-82 

Five specific goals have guided association activities over the past year which 

have broadened the base of services and programs available to optometric 

education. 

6 

11 

18 

23 

DEPARTMENTS 

Editorial: "Faculty Workloads in a Recessionary Economy" 

Vonne F. Porter, Ph.D. 

Newsampler 

Classified 

4 

5 

30 

Cover design and graphics by Graphics in General 

Typesetting: Bobbie Peters Graphics 

Cover photo by John Carswell, photographer for the School of Optometry, University of Alabama in Birmingham. 

The JOURNAL OF OPTOMETRIC EDUCATION is published by the Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry 

(ASCO). Managing Editor: Harriet E. Long Art Director: Dan Hildt. Graphics in General. Business and 

editorial offices are located at 600 Maryland Ave., S.W., Suite 410. Washington. D.C. 20024. Subscriptions: JOE is 

published quarterly and distributed at no charge to dues-paying members of ASCO. Individual subscriptions are available at 

$10.00 per year. $15.00 per year to foreign subscribers. Postage paid for a non-profit, tax-exempt organization at Washington. 

D.C. Copyright© 1982 by The Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry. Advertising rates are available 

upon request.

EDITORIAL 

Faculty Workloads in a 

Recessionary Economy 

One could say that the fifteen years from 1963 

to 1978 were the "golden" years in health professions 

education—what with repeated injections of 

federal funds in the form of construction grants. 

Health Professions Student Loans. College Work 

Study, research grants, basic (capitation) grants, 

special project grants, and even financial distress 

grants. Then, a funny thing happened on the way 

to the office: one by one. construction grants, 

special project grants, and financial distress grants 

were phased out; research grants were severely 

curtailed. Now, federal student loan programs 

have been curtailed and funds which are available 

can be obtained only at high interest rates. Even 

the College Work Study Program has been cut 

somewhat and threatened more. It was only a 

matter of time until most states were mirroring the 

federal squeeze. 

One alternative to the '"golden" view might be 

that those fund infusions were Trojan horse-like 

intravenous injections producing new "highs" of 

quality education, "excellent" research, and extensive 

public service programs with the addicting 

power of remarkable increases in salaries and 

fringe benefits. 

Southern College of Optometry anticipated the 

possibility of hard times in 1977. In a faculty and 

staff planning conference, a resolution was presented 

and adopted which set out priorities for reduction 

of expenses if necessary to balance the 

budget in future years. At that time, the budget 

crunch was expected to result from a planned reduction 

of enrollment rather than from the 

demise of the golden goose and a general recession. 

Three years later, il became necessary to 

begin implementation. 

During the 1980-81 fiscal year, the optical dispensary 

was put under outside management and 

moved off the main campus. This was partly because 

the dispensary was a deficit operation and 

partly for academic reasons. 

During the same year, it was found that several 

vacant faculty positions would, if filled, result in a 

budget deficit on June 30. 1981, and would not 

be fundable the following year. As a result, these 

positions were frozen for the remainder of the 

year. A hiring freeze was imposed such that in the 

event of resignations, only critical positions would 

be filled. 

The 1981-82 budget was prepared with little or 

no padding. The previously frozen vacant positions 

were eliminated. A limited hiring freeze was 

continued. In addition, the inflation factor which 

was applied to all salaries was limited lo 4.81 'Y> as 

compared to a 9.69°c> increase which normally 

would have been applied following the Department 

of Labor CPI. That was the first year since 

the CPI-indexed salary schedule was established 

in 1969. that the college held been unable to 

"keep up with inflation." 

The 1982-83 budget was prepared even more 

severely. The SCO CPI was reduced by 1.67 c -c> 

rather than increased. Increments to an employee's 

salary index via rank, merit, and longevity 

were continued which did permit small raises for 

lower-salaried employees by offsetting the CPI 

reduction. Some higher-salaried employees netted 

oul to a decrease in salary. The overall effect 

was about 0.5"o increase in salaries on the average 

as compared to about 8°o the previous year 

and almost 18 l Y> the year before that. 

The l c )82-83 budget also eliminated any unfilled 

vacant positions that had resulted from 

resignations during the previous period. Of 

course, salaries were not the only expense items 

under restraint. Equipment budgets were severely 

curtailed and some plant improvements were deferred. 

Paid leave benefits were modified by reducing 

sick leave accrual from 1.25 days/month 

to 1.00 days.'month and by reducing the maximum 

accrual of annual leave from 2 days/month 

to 1.5 days-month after 15 years. 

The specific impact of these economics on individual 

faculty workloads has been minimal. In 

some cases, it has been necessary to reduce the 

assigned time worked. In other cases, the amounl 

of paid time released for research, public service, 

and other non-essential activities has been reduced 

and replaced with direct instructional assignments. 

By carrying out a planned and orderly economizing 

procedure over a period of two or more 

years, it has been possible to minimize the necessity 

for discharging individuals for the sole reason 

of lack of funds, while maintaining a balanced 

budget. . 

Vonne F. Porter. Ph.D. 

Executive Vice-President 


4 •Jourrhil i>t Optumctnr Induration

Health Competition Announced 

DHHS Secrtary Richard S. Schweiker 

has announced a new annual competition 

among health professions students 

to encourage new ideas in health 

promotion and disease prevention. The 

new competition would seek the 20 best 

papers by graduate and undergraduate 

students in health fields for the new 

"Secretary's Award for Innovations in 

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention." 

The first competition will take 

place in the coming school year, with 

papers to be submitted by December 15 

and winners announced next May. 

The new secretary's award would go 

to three finalists and 17 semi-finalists 

each year. All 20 proposals would be 

published by the Department of Health 

and Human Services, and cash awards 

would go to the winners: $3,000 for first 

place; $2,000 for second; $1,000 for 

third; and $100 for each semi-finalist. 

The competition is open to students 

of optometry as well as other health and 

allied health professions. Complete information 

will be sent to the chief administrator 

of all eligible schools shortly. 

SCO Receives $12,000 

Lowenstein Grant 

A $12,000 grant from the Lowenstein 

Foundation, Memphis, Tennessee, 

the William P. and Marie R. Lowenstein 

Research and Clinical Fellowship, 

has been awarded to Southern 

College of Optometry (SCO). This 

grant will enable SCO to establish a 

12-month optometric fellowship in 

pediatric optometry, according to Dr. 

John R. Levene, dean of faculty, 

Southern College of Optometry. 

The first recipient of the Lowenstein 

Fellowship is Dr. Diane Serex-Dougan, 

a 1981 graduate of the Southern College 

of Optometry. 

JOE Wins Editors' Award 

In a tie for first place in the best journal 

competition, the Journal of Optometric 

Education captured the award 

for "Best National Optometric Journal" 

this year along with the Southern Journal 

of Optometry, edited by Frank S. 

Gibson, O.D., in the Optometric Editors 

Association (OEA) annual contest for 

excellence in optometric publishing. 

In addition, an article published in the 

Winter 1981 issue of the Journal of Optometric 

Education entitled, "An Analysis 

of Optometric Practices in Rural Alabama," 

written by Bradford W. Wild, 

O.D., Ph.D., and Richard Maisiak, 

Ph.D., won runnerup in the OEA's best 

article competition. 

NEWENCO Technician 

Program Approved 

The Massachusetts Board of Regents 

of Higher Education has extended the 

degree granting authority of the New 

England College of Optometry to include 

the Associate in Science degree 

for optometric technicians. 

The technician program, solely operated 

by NEWENCO for the last year, is 

the outgrowth of a joint program with 

Fisher Junior College begun over ten 

years ago. 

Because the degree granting authority 

now lies with NEWENCO, students 

can complete their general academic 

coursework at any accredited college or 

junior college. They then spend an academic 

year at NEWENCO completing 

optometric studies. Students also have 

the option of completing the coursework 

at NEWENCO first, and obtaining 

a position as an optometric assistant 

while completing their degree requirements 

on a part-time basis. 

Applebaum Scholarship 

Established 

The Alvin Applebaum Memorial 

Scholarship Fund has been established 

at the Southern California College of 

Optometry (SCCO) by Morris Applebaum, 

O.D., director of the Optometric 

Center of Fullerton, the major teaching 

clinic of the college, in memory of his 

father who died recently. 

The award will be made annually to a 

third-year professional student who has 

demonstrated excellence in patient 

care, academic achievement and has 

financial need. The name of the recipient 

will be inscribed on a perpetual 

plaque which is displayed in the Optometric 

Center of Fullerton clinic on the 

SCCO campus. 

ICO Adds New Building 

Construction of a new two-story, 

50,000 square-foot addition to the Illinois 

College of Optometry began fullforce 

in June 1982, with projections indicating 

students and faculty will be 

using the building in fall, 1983. 

The new building has been designated 

for much-needed office, library, 

and lecture hall space, freeing up areas 

in the existing building for clinic expansion, 

more effective use of space, and 

improvements in the current facility. 

UH Institutes Electronic 

Prescription Transmittal 

With the help of Southern States 

Optical Company of Houston, the University 

of Houston (UH) College of Optometry 

has begun using electronic 

communication to get prescribed 

corrective eyeglasses onto a patient's 

nose with the least amount of problems 

and undue delay. The key element in 

the program is a Panafax MV1200, a 

machine that transmits prescription information 

over telephone lines directly 

to a main computer at Southern States 

Optical. 

The Panafax equipment was donated 

to the UH optometry clinic by R.A. 

Mackenzie, president of Southern 

States Optical and a 1966 UH business 

graduate. 

With the two-way communication 

capability, UH clinic staff will be able to 

request a status report on any prescription 

being processed and receive a written 

answer the same day. Also, orders 

received over the Panafax go directly to 

the computer bypassing the usual order 

clerks. The computer eventually will 

control every phase of production from 

layout to grinding to edging, as well as 

inventory control and checkout of backordered 

prescriptions. 

Keeping Up 

with People... 

Dr. Robert Stamper, professor of 

ophthalmology at Pacific Medical 

Center of San Francisco and one of the 

leading glaucoma specialists of the 

United States, and Dr. Darrell 

Carter, assistant dean of the School of 

Optometry of the University of California, 

will lead a group of optometrists 

and ophthalmologists to the People's 

Republic of China March 5 to March 26, 

1983. 

Recently elected to the Board of 

Trustees of the Southern California Col- 

(continued on page 30) 

Volume 8, Number 1 / Summer 1982 5

PART I 

On the 

Workload of Faculty 

Defining Faculty Workload 

Willard B. Bleything, O.D., M.S. 

It has been said that tradition, sentiment, 

rule-of-thumb and temporizing 

compromise have been, and unfortunately 

still are, the dominant methods 

used in educational administration. 

Consistent with this pronouncement, 

for as many as thirty years there has 

been concern over the evaluation of 

faculty load. Reeves and Russell, 1 in 

1929, commented: 

No thoroughly scientific method of 

measuring faculty load is now available. 

Existing measures are unsatisfactory 

and incomplete. The answers 

are not yet in. Yet as a practical 

necessity, some method of measuring 

and adjusting faculty load—even 

though only approximate—must be 

employed. 

Real sources for conflict can exist in the 

assessment of faculty load due to the 

publics served and their differing goals 2 

coupled with the broad mission of a university. 

3 There exists a fictional view of 

college teaching as a life of relative ease 

from daily pressures, safely insulated 

from the harsh world of work. The campus 

skyscraper, known to many somewhat 

derisively as the "ivory tower," is 

said to be filled with occupants who seldom 

descend to reality and who are 

permitted to ply their trade in bucolic if 

not idyllic surroundings, gently enveloped 

in ivy, pipe smoke and chalkdust. 

4 Such stereotyping has caused 

higher education advocates to row upstream 

while they negotiate for an appropriate 

ration of public funds. 

In the 1950s, the trend toward lighter 

Willard B. Bleything, O.D., M.S., is 

Dean of the College of Optometry, 

Pacific University, Forest Grove, Oregon. 

teaching loads prevailed; however, 

from the late 1960s into the 1970s, the 

trend evolved into increased workloads 

for faculty. Lombardi 5 feels this change 

has been largely due to financial difficulties 

encountered by many colleges. 

State legislators have indicated 

minimum workloads for faculty. 

With such pressures from outside the 

educational community it has been increasingly 

important for higher education 

to address the issue of faculty load. 

Affected are all elements of postsecondary 

education from the community 

college to the major research university 

and also those institutions for the education 

of health professionals. Despite the 

impact little attention has been given 

this subject by health professions educators. 

What follows is a comprehensive review 

of the literature addressing the subject 

of faculty workload under three 

separate discussion topics: (1) defining 

faculty workload; (2) elements of faculty 

workload and their relative weighting; 

and (3) faculty load formulas. Concluding 

comments detail five basic "load 

laws" to be observed in the design of 

any faculty workload system. 

Defining Faculty 

Workload 

The need for a generally accepted 

definition of faculty workload has long 

been recognized by such national agencies 

as the American Association of Collegiate 

Registrars and Admissions Officers, 

the American Council on Education, 

and the U.S. Office of Education. 6 

Some have felt the attention to measurement 

of faculty load arose from 

concern within the 50s over the "numbers 

game." 7 College administrators 

and institutional research specialists 

were looking for systematic and more 

efficient ways of deploying scarce faculty 

"numbers" due to the exponential 

student enrollment increases forecasted. 

Clearly, in the internal management 

of colleges and universities, faculty 

workload data is useful in planning 

for the future. From physical layout to 

projecting personnel, this information is 

an important tool in preparing capital 

and current operating budgets. However, 

in addition to this generalization, 

there exists a number of specific benefits 

to faculty and administrator. 

Teaching Effectiveness 

Morton 8 develops the rationale that 

teaching effectiveness bears a relation to 

teaching load. He specifically holds caution 

for the departmental add-ons to 

teaching and underscores the point that 

what can pass for serious incompetence 

in a teacher is not always rooted in professional 

qualifications but rather, lack 

of judgment in apportionment of time. 

Hicks, 9 in 1960 while reporting to a 

conference sponsored by the American 

Council on Education, makes the statement 

that no objective study has ever 

been made of the relationship between 

quality of faculty performance and 

faculty workload and questions if such 

could be done until it is learned how to 

measure quality objectively. His approach 

is to make comparisons with industry. 

Citing the studies by psychologists 

and sociologists in industrial settings 

he points out that overwork, or 

"overloading" can adversely affect 

quality of work. Similarly, faculty workload 

can be increased to the extent that 

the quality of the work will suffer. 

Whether the converse is true—that 

the lighter the load, the higher the 

quality—seems another matter entirely. 


The meat in the argument is the tendency 

for faculty to be loaded with 

assignments of dubious value when 

they might be doing more useful things. 

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits, 

then, to be gained from faculty workload 

studies is the opportunity to 

analyze and define what each faculty 

member is doing in order to use best 

each one's time and energies. To describe 

this particular set of circumstances, 

Hicks turns to a term in 

economics—"higher profit combination," 

meaning to seek that combination 

of activity that realizes the highest yield 

vital information which can be used to 

improve an institution in many ways. A 

good understanding of faculty work 

activities is important in assessing the effect 

of new elements and changes in 

higher education. 

Typically, in a time analysis study, 

summary is made of data on faculty activity 

by the administrative head of any 

particular unit. This means that the administrator 

must determine how his/her 

conception of what faculty members are 

doing agrees with the individual faculty 

person's evaluation. Stecklein 11 reports 

that this experience has caused many to 

"A good understanding of faculty work activities is 

important in assessing the effect of new elements and 

changes in higher education." 

or profit. Therein lies the argument that 

a study of faculty workload can enhance 

teaching effectiveness. 

Time Analysis of Work 

As early as 1937 pleas were being 

made relative to the need for time 

analysis of instruction; 10 strong exception 

was being raised as to the use of 

student credit hours as a means of measuring 

faculty work. Some twenty-four 

years later, in 1961, the American 

Council on Education published an important 

work on the measurement of 

faculty workload. 11 This introduced the 

view that very few businesses or institutions 

of comparable size, complexity 

and diversity of function operate with as 

little detailed knowledge and understanding 

of the basic activities of their 

workers as do most colleges and universities. 

Studies of faculty load provide 

reassess discrepancies between their impression 

of what a faculty member is doing 

and the individual's account. Better 

understanding can result. 

Wessel 12 expresses grave concern for 

the tendency to measure an instructor's 

prestige on how little time he/she 

teaches and especially by the infrequency 

of contacts with undergraduates, 

the reason given for drastic 

reduction in teaching loads almost invariably 

being the promotion of research 

by faculty members. The 

assumption is made that release from 

heavy classroom assignments will lead 

the typical faculty member to devote 

most of his/her time to scholarly activities. 

Thus, time analysis of faculty activities 

can be useful in determining an appropriate 

mix of responsibilities per individual 

faculty member—specifically, 

teaching and research along with professional 

and community activities. 

During a curriculum planning discussion 

a school of nursing 13 found still 

another reason for doing a faculty time 

analysis study. In this case an evaluation 

of personnel needs was being done relative 

to a proposed curriculum change. 

By comparing the hours available for 

teaching to the hours required for 

teaching it was possible to project the 

need for additional faculty. The time 

analysis of faculty work can build the 

rationale for appropriate staffing. 

Equity of Load 

A position was advanced earlier that 

teaching effectiveness could be affected 

adversely due to the tendency for faculty 

to become loaded with assignments 

of dubious value. Hicks 9 develops the 

point further when he stresses the need 

to make certain faculty are loaded with 

the right things, rather than with trivialities 

which nevertheless subtract from 

the effort which can be put to the really 

important job a professor may do. He 

states faculty work studies can serve 

well the function of protection for that 

"good" professor who tends always to 

be overloaded: it is their nature to be so. 

The duty of the administrator is to protect 

the time of these professors so that 

it may be used to the fullest extent for 

what they can do best. 

Therefore, along with the other arguments 

for faculty activity analysis, a further 

premise is advanced that equity is 

important: equity among individual 

faculty members, among departments 

and colleges, and among institutions. 14 

Another wrinkle yet presents itself in 

that some confusion and uncertainty on 

the part of both faculty and administration 

can exist concerning the actual 

duties of faculty members. One may be 

hired as a teacher and assigned a "full 

teaching load;" yet when the time 

comes to award promotions and salary 

increases, these awards may not be 

based on the quality of teaching but 

rather on the quality and quantity of research 

conducted in the teacher's spare 

time. 15 Surely, this is yet another form 

of inequity. One outcome of faculty 

workload studies should be the more 

effective coordination of the expectations 

of department heads, academic 

deans, promotion committees, and the 

like, with the intentions of faculty 

members. 

Starr 16 discusses the development of 

a unit system devised and implemented 

in the Department of History at Princeton 

University. He explains how mem- 

8 Journal of Optometric Education

ers of the senior and junior faculty 

tended to view one another with suspicion, 

each often convinced that the 

other was not doing his/her share of the 

work. Also rare is the social scientist or 

teacher in the humanities who does not 

believe that colleagues in the natural sciences 

or professional schools are getting 

more money for less work. Thus, the 

equity question comprises concerns to 

see that faculty are loaded with the right 

things, that there is equity of load 

among faculty, that evaluation 

measures performance of assigned 

load, and that load matches time available. 

tion may be labeled activity analysis; 

those aimed at the second are called 

cost analysis. These two strains of 

analysis meet in what might be called 

optimization analysis, the analysis of 

least-cost means of meeting given output 

objectives or maximum feasible output 

objectives for a given set of basic inputs. 

18 Thus, it can be stated activity 

analysis is particularly useful in predicting 

the consequences as to the costs of 

specific simulated decisions: a way to 

"try on" various scenarios. 

The Association of American Medical 

Colleges (AAMC) has reported on 

health education programs as to the actual 

and ideal distributions of faculty 

time. To determine if perceptions of 

ideal activities differed among the faculty 

members, program directors, and administrators, 

data were solicited from 

each. The underlying rationale was that 

if one could obtain a measure of actual 

and ideal distributions of faculty activities 

from all involved individuals the 

data would have planning value for all 

groups. This approach adds yet another 

quality as a resource for planning: the 

development of general statements concerning 

ideal faculty activities. 

Cost Analysis 

The health professions, for the most 

part, have been rather silent through 

these years of faculty-workload studies. 

In fact, it can be noted that when faculty 

workload studies have been conducted 

within multi-university campuses where 

a school of medicine exists, typically 

that particular school has been excluded 

from the study. Interest on medical 

campuses did begin to appear in the late 

1960s through the early 70s centered 

around analysis of cost. Stoddard 17 

reports a substantial increase in the demand 

by government for detailed cost 

analysis of medical education during 

this period. 

It is generally agreed that of those 

costs contributing to education, "personnel" 

represents between 50 percent 

to 80 percent of the total. This being 

true, a meaningful cost of education 

study must include a significant component 

relative to faculty effort, the 

chief single element of cost. In applying 

this approach, caution is advised in the 

proper evaluation and use of faculty 

effort-reporting data. 17 It must be remembered 

that it is merely a tool for 

cost analysis. As such, it does not possess 

the precision of a cost-accounting 

system; this is not the intention of cost 

analysis. Cost accounting implies a 

mechanism for the day-to-day allocation 

of direct and indirect costs to cost 

centers within an organization. Cost 

analysis means a single analysis—a 

snapshot—of the total cost of an organization 

during a particular fiscal period. 

As such, the purpose of a cost analysis 

is to find and present costs rather 

than to monitor them. First, it is important 

to examine what inputs will be required 

to achieve given output targets 

and then how costs should be assigned 

to a particular process. The management 

tools aimed toward the first ques- 

"A meaningful cost of educe education study must include a 

significant component relative relatm to faculty effort, the chief 

single elemei element of cost." 

undergraduate medical education cost 

elements. 19 They developed the concept 

of a hypothetical faculty member 

fully involved in education, describing a 

profile for a basic science and clinical 

science faculty member. The Institute of 

Medicine 20 also conducted a study 

which utilized actual faculty activity 

analysis data. Like the AAMC they 

developed a profile for basic science 

and clinical science faculty. These 

resulted in cost constructions as a 

means of defining the essential activities 

in which a faculty member must participate 

in order to produce a quality educational 

product. 

Another approach has been taken by 

Harper and Gonyea. 21 They set out to 

obtain faculty activity data that could be 

used for planning purposes. A project 

was designed to identify the perceptions 

of faculty members in several allied 

Sommers 22 stresses the point that 

academic communities have come 

under intense pressures to balance 

expenditures with income. As a result, 

the concept of university productivity as 

a management technique now is found 

in academia. Borrowing from experiences 

at the University of New Haven 

this author offers various strategies to increase 

productivity. Emphasis is placed 

on revenue-cost ratios, class size and 

faculty teaching schedules as primary 

factors in productivity improvement. 

Enochs, 23 a graduate studies dean, 

brings to light still another important 

reason for conducting workload studies: 

the problem of pay. He makes a parallelism 

to attorneys and other privatepractice 

professionals. They are considerably 

freer than teachers to decide the 

number of cases they will take, and in 

contrast with teachers, the more cases 


showed that the typical professor 

worked 54.8 hours per week 33 with the 

average faculty member devoting 30.4 

hours to teaching activities; 8.1 hours 

were actual "contact" hours with 17.3 

hours spent on directly related activities 

such as lecture and media preparation, 

grading, and meeting with students. 

Student services, administrative duties 

and committee participation were reported 

at a median value of 6.5 hours. 

Public service averaged 2.1 hours. 

Wendel 4 reports on a faculty member 

workload study in 1977 that involved 

five different state colleges.* On the 

average of a 51.6 hour work week, 

30.8 hours were involved in teaching, 4 

hours in advising, 5 hours in research 

and 11 hours in service activities. These 

and various other studies are presented 

in Table 2. 

Teaching activities are reported from 

25 hours to 41 hours per week in these 

particular studies for a percentage of 

time commitment from 46% within the 

University of California system to 74% 

within the Wisconsin State University. 

'Chadron State College, Kearney State College, 

Peru State College, Wayne State College, Iowa 

State University 

In an inverse relationship, research time 

is reported from 3% at Wisconsin State 

University to 38% in the University of 

California system. Some caution is appropriate 

in the interpretation of the 

hours reported and effort reported as a 

percentage of total time. With the exception 

of those institutions in Wisconsin, 

there is little spread of hours reported 

in teaching related activities 

(25-33 hours). Many who have conducted 

faculty activity studies have 

noted the teaching related activities to 

be representative of what has been 

"assigned" by the host institution with 

the bulk of the scholarly endeavors being 

represented in those hours reported 

that exceed the usual "labor force" work 

week norm of 40 hours. 

To test this notion, it is of interest to 

make a separate distribution by subtracting 

the research hours reported from 

the total hours reported. Doing so 

makes a teaching activity work week of 

37 hours to 53 hours with 44 as the 

mean. In other words, the major portion 

of the variability in total hours is accounted 

for in research time reported 

rather than in teaching time assigned. 

This would suggest that factors other 

than release time from teaching play the 

major role in determining the commitment 

of faculty to research. 

As has been noted, many of the 

faculty load studies conducted have excluded 

health profession schools. In 

1972-73 a cost of education in health 

professions study was conducted by the 

National Academy of Science, Institute 

of Medicine. 20 This included the disciplines 

of medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, 

optometry, pharmacy, podiatry, 

veterinary medicine and nursing. Within 

the study, detail relative to load distribution 

in hours per week is found (see 

Table 3). Teaching activities range from 

10 hours to 33 hours per week with a 

mean of 23 hours. Two-product activities 

as joint teaching/patient care and 

joint research/teaching range from 1 to 

14 hours per week with a mean of 8 

hours. Independent research ranges 

from 0 to 16 hours/week with a mean 

of 6 hours. Patient care related activities 

are reported from 0 to 9 hours per week 

with a mean of 3 hours. Service activities 

average at 2 hours per week. The 

average time per week for administrative 

activities is 5 hours; professional 

development averages 4 hours and 

writing averages 1 hour. The total work 

week spans from 37 to 59 hours with 

TABLE 2 

Average Hours Per Week of Full-Time Faculty by Activity in Various Studies Reported 1970-78 

Activity 

Mean 

Univ . of Calif 

(San Diego) 24 

Univ. of 

Conn." 

Five State 

Colleges 

(Average) 4 


Maryland 42 


Wisconsin 28 

Wisconsin 

State Univ. 2 * 


Calif. 

(UC Sys.)* 

Eight Mid- 

Western 

Universities 

(Average) 35 

Direct Contact 

Teaching 

Preparation 

and Evaluation 

33 

30 

30 

31 

33 

38 

41 

12 

13 

15 

18 

Research 

11 

15 

14 

5 

17 

7 

2 

23 

9 

Public Service 

Administration 

9 

2 

5 

2 

6 

11 

9 

2 

5 

5 I 

12 

2 

5 

Professional 

Development 

6 

2 

Other 

2 

2 

5 

3 

2 

6 

Total 

Hours/Week 

55 

60 

54 

52 

62 

54 

55 

60 

49 

Note: Numbers have been rounded. 

"News Item, Chronicle of Higher Education. 


an average of 51 hours. Podiatry 

schools report the lightest work week 

and pharmacy schools the heaviest 

work week. 

Table 4 draws a comparison between 

the hours per week reported by full-time 

faculty in higher education in general as 

compared to health professions schools, 

the difference averaging 55 hours to 51 

hours respectively. Like activities are 

grouped and compared for these two 

groups in Table 4. 

It is of interest to note the degree of 

similarity in percentage of effort in 

teaching activities and "other" with the 

noticeable differences being in independent 

research activities and in public 

service-administrative-professional 

development activities. According to 

these studies, research is given more 

emphasis in higher education in general 

than in the health professions (20% versus 

12% effort), while the area of public 

service-administrative-professional development 

is given greater emphasis in 

the health professions (16% versus 

23% effort). It is recognized that these 

statements are generalizations and difficult 

to apply to any particularly paired 

institutions due to the extreme variability 

in both groups. 

Research 

Since one of the marked differences 

between institutions and school disciplines 

relative to total hours reported 

seems a function of research emphasis, 

a closer look at this area is in order. 

Evenden, et al. 34 show that faculty 

members in land-grant institutions, state 

universities, and private nondenominational 

institutions spend substantially 

more time on research activities than do 

faculty members in teachers colleges 

and junior colleges. They show also that 

teaching clock hours are only slightly reduced 

for faculty members engaged in 

research. In fact, the study showed that 

larger percentages of faculty with heavy 

workloads engage in research than do 

those with lighter loads. While there is 

some tendency for the quality of research 

to go up as the class load is reduced, 

the amount of research actually 

accomplished does not seem, in most 

cases, to be related closely to the classroom 

teaching load.* Rather the individual's 

enthusiasm for research seems 

to be the determining factor. 

Sexson 35 stresses there are many extremely 

effective faculty members who 

simply do not desire to perform research; 

they are more devoted to the 

classroom functions. Sexson comments, 

"Although the importance of research 

by faculty members cannot be 

denied, granting a 'blanket' amount of 

time for research for every single faculty 

member would be highly impracticable." 

Referring to Table 2, of those studies 

listed, the greatest time commitment by 

faculty to research is reported within the 

University of California system. On a 

weekly basis, 23 out of 60 hours, or 

38% of the average week, is devoted to 

research. In a study published by the 

*In one report the comment is made that 

whenever the teaching load has climbed to 15 

hours per week research practically stops. 

TABLE 3 

Average Hours Per Week of Full-Time Faculty by Activity in Sampled Health Professions Schools 

1972-73 

Activity 

Mean 

Medical Schools 

Basic Clinical 

Science Science 

Osteopath. 

Schools 

Dental 


Optometry Pharmacy 

Schools Schools 

Podiatry 


Veterinary 

Medicine 


Nursing 


Teaching 

• teaching 

• preparation 

• curriculum 

devel. 

6 

10 

7 

5 

8 

3 

4 

4 

2 

5 

10 

3 

6 

8 

4 

9 

10 

5 

10 

15 

4 

5 

9 

4 

6 

8 

8 

8 

17 

6 

Joint 

• teaching/ 

patient care 

• research/ 

teaching 

7 

1 

1 

4 

11 

1 

12 

* 

9 

1 

11 

1 

1 

2 

9 

* 

4 

2 

8 

Research 

• independent 

research 

Patient Care 

• patient care 

• hospital/clinic 

admin. 

6 

2 

1 

16 

— 

— 

7 

6 

2 

2 

3 

1 

5 

2 

* 

3 

3 

3 

7 

2 

1 

* 

1 

* 

10 

3 

2 

1 

* 

0 

Service 

2 

3 

3. 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

7 

2 

General Support 

• administration 

• professional 

development 

• writing 

Total 

Hours/Week 

5 

4 

1 

51 

6 

5 

2 

53 

6 

5 

1 

52 

4 

4 

* 

45 

5 

6 

1 

49 

6 

5 

* 

57 

7 

5 

2 

59 

5 

2 

* 

37 

1 

4 

1 

56 

6 

4 

1 

53 

Source: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 1974. Note: Numbers have been rounded. 

Volume 8, Number 1 / Summer 1982 

'Less than 30 minutes/week. 

13

"The defining of faculty 

workload for the besttime-use 

and energies 

combination—the high 

profit combination—can 

enhance teaching 

effectiveness." ft + 

* 

! , 

coming their way, the more they can 

and do charge. To a certain extent, 

then, other professions experience a 

satisfactory sense of balance between 

their loads and their remuneration. 

Therefore, another purpose to be 

served by workload studies may be to 

gather data in support of salary adjustment 

for faculty. 

Accountability 

During 1976, the University of California, 

San Diego (UCSD), conducted a 

study 24 to review the full spectrum of 

professional activities of a faculty member. 

* A principal incentive for the study 

was to provide a basis for greater understanding, 

internal and external to the 

university, about the extent of UC 

goals, what UC faculty members' responsibilities 

were, how these responsibilities 

were fulfilled and the interrelationships 

of those responsibilities. In this 

regard, a university lacks the quantitative 

and rather simple measures of 

profit and loss found in a business organization 

and yet the accountability in 

academia is greater than that of business. 

Starr 16 traces a short history relative 

to this period of accountability. For 

decades, questions relative to the extent 

of the obligations of faculty to their students 

and institutions were settled without 

ceremony by department chairmen 

and deans who set workloads on an ad 

hoc basis after consulting with members 

"Excluding the School of Medicine. 

of their teaching staff. New faculty were 

hired as the need arose, and the entire 

system remained more or less undisturbed. 

Of recent, however, this seems 

under attack. "State auditors—notably 

in California, Florida, and new Yorkhave 

demanded that campus administrators 

call professors to account for 

their supposedly lax work schedules," 

states Starr. 

Swofford 25 makes the point that, especially 

now, legislators are beginning 

to demand that an accounting of education 

funds be given. He states that all institutions 

need to measure the value of 

their services in order to justify their 

existence to themselves and to their 

public. Until recently, however, this 

concept had been but weakly applied in 

the world of education; campus and 

public debate had focused on faculty 

workloads. Creswell 26 feels this represented 

a low ebb of public confidence in 

colleges. He points to collective negotiations 

in academia as a driving force to 

such debate. Discussions taking place at 

the negotiations table were teaching 

load, summer employment, office 

hours, calendar and class size, because 

they became items of negotiation in 

contracts. For some states, the legislature 

mandated specific faculty workloads. 

He points out the need to gain, 

faculty acceptance of workload analysis 

and to demonstrate to faculty the benefits 

of using activity data. His research 

indicates that these are achievable objectives. 

Conclusions 

The defining of faculty workload for 

the best-time-use and energies combination—the 

high profit combinationcan 

enhance teaching effectiveness. 

Vital management information allowing 

assessment of individual faculty roles, 

teaching function versus research function 

and projected faculty needs are all 

benefits derived from a time analysis of 

work by faculty. An equity of load can 

be achieved via more precise definement, 

thus offering protection for the 

over-committed professor, providing for 

relative load balance between departments 

and institutions, achieving 

relative apportionment of load for the 

junior/senior faculty, and allowing symmetry 

of assignment against available 

time. Effective cost analysis studies using 

faculty load data are useful tools in 

determining present and future costs. 

Accountability of higher education is being 

demanded by the general public, 

state and federal government. Faculty 

activity translated into program outputs 

and cost can be directed toward these 

demands. 

Durham 27 provides a thoughtful summary 

statement: "As one who is convinced 

that faculty improvement, including 

salary status, in the next decade 

is largely dependent on faculty ability to 

increase its productivity, qualitatively 

and quantitatively, I submit that future 

intelligent use of faculty workload data 

is a sine qua non of faculty life and of 

university administration." 


PART II 

Elements of Faculty Workload 

and Their Relative Weightings 

1 he traditional approach of measuring 

a faculty member's workload only in 

terms of hours spent in formal teaching 

is as erroneous as measuring the workload 

of an attorney in terms of hours 

spent arguing cases in court. 

A single indicator as classroom instruction 

presents a considerably limited 

view of the mission of higher education. 

Several other indicators which measure 

other aspects of teaching, as well as research 

and public service, are needed to 

present a complete view. 28 

Moreover, returning to the analogy of 

law, if the hours in court become so 

high the attorney has no time for case 

preparation then effectiveness will diminish. 

In a like manner, faculty members 

who spend excessive time lecturing 

or meeting with laboratory classes will 

have little time for the preparation of 

lectures and development of laboratory 

procedures, all of which can result in a 

less effective teacher. 

Charters, 29 Heiss, 30 Howell, 31 Harper, 

32 and Witmer 28 all have discussed 

the issue of "elements" in faculty load. 

These discussions go back nearly forty 

years but still remain somewhat unsolved, 

at least to the satisfaction of both 

faculty and administrator. Sifting 

through that which has been written, 

perhaps one of the most concise yet 

comprehensive presentations has been 

made by Harper 32 in 1978. Table 1 has 

been adapted from this paper. It describes 

as elements of load: direct contact 

teaching, preparation and evaluation, 

research, public service, administration 

and professional development. 

According to Heiss 30 the undergraduate 

teacher averages between 12 to 15 

hours a week in the classroom with the 

remainder of the time being spent on 

approximately seventy different activities 

related to the academic role. 

In the end, the point that bears making 

is the need to identify definable activities 

that represent the entire scope of 

faculty responsibility—the assignment. 

This step must be accomplished before 

consideration of equity can be achieved 

along with the need to obtain data for 

the appraisal of cost associated with 

these activities. 

Weighting 

Selecting those elements as described 

by Harper, 32 it is now appropriate to examine 

the relative weighting given to 

each and to examine what other factors 

may influence change in the relative 

weighting. First, those studies that give 

some direction to the basic question of 

relative weight (time) or effort given to 

each workload element will be considered. 

Faculty members at the University of 

Activity 

Direct contact teaching 

Preparation and evaluation 

Research 

Public service 


Professional development 

TABLE 1 

Elements of Faculty Load 

Examples 

California, San Diego (UCSD),* 

reported in a 1976 survey that they 

spent approximately 60 hours per week 

in all university responsibilities with 

nearly 30 hours directly related to instruction 

at all levels. 24 General scholarship, 

student related activities, public 

service, and administrative responsibilities 

required an additional 15 hours per 

week with an equal amount devoted to 

research. A study of the faculty work 

week at the University of Connecticut* * 

'Excluding the School of Medicine. 

** Study excluded librarians, extension agents 

and health center faculty. 

Teaching in classroom; laboratory; clinic; individual 

studies; academic advising. 

Developing instructional aids, monitoring equipment, 

arranging for clinical experience, labs; 

preparing lectures; lab set ups; evaluation of instructional 

activities; evaluation of student work, 

grading papers. Course/curriculum development. 

Curriculum, laboratory, clinical, systemsoriented 

research; writing proposals; collecting/analyzing 

data; supervising research projects. 

Consultation; service in a professional capacity 

to organizations; professional practice. 

Completing forms, time schedules; committees. 

Professional improvement; taking graduate 

courses, readings in field to keep current; professional 

meetings for self-improvement; publ ! Iica- ~~ 

tions and presentations. 


Center of Research and Development 

in Higher Education, University of California, 

Berkeley, 30 the statement is 

made, "Explicitly and implicitly major 

universities make it clear to, their nontenured 

faculty that unless they publish 

within a specified period of their appointment, 

their chances of retention 

are extremely remote. Thus, with 

respect to the university, only the productive 

scholar need apply." Also it is of 

interest to note, in the few attempts that 

have been made to measure and compare 

teaching effectiveness of those 

who publish with those who do not, student 

ratings tend to favor the former. 30 

Table 2 shows a noticeable reduction, 

when reported as percent of effort, in 

teaching activities in the University of 

California system compared to other institutions: 

however, the weekly hours 

devoted to teaching are not all that different. 

The mean hours per week for 

teaching activities of all studies was 33 

and the UC study reported 25 hours. 

However, this reduction coupled with 

the finding that UC faculty report a 60 

hour work week makes for a 38% effort 

commitment to research by these faculty. 

Time for and commitment to research 

is oftentimes discussed in relation to 

graduate teaching loads as compared to 

undergraduate, the graduate faculty 

member having a heavier involvement 

in research. The American Association 

of University Professors (AAUP) policy 

documents 36 offer the following guidelines 

for teaching loads. 

Maximum 

Preferable 

Hours Per Week of 

Formal Class Meetings 

Undergraduate 

Graduate 

12 

9 

9 

6 

Brand 37 describes various studies 

done in 1972 by the National Education 

Association where it was found the 

semester hours for faculty teaching 

undergraduate courses in four-year 

institutions was 12 as an average. In 

comparison, the average semester 

hours for faculty teaching graduate 

courses was 10. 

As mentioned earlier, from studies 

reported it appears the time spent in research 

by faculty in general higher education 

exceeds that of faculty in the 

health professions. Research activity 

among health professions faculty ranges 

from less than 30 minutes per week in 

schools of podiatry to that of 16 hours 

per week by the basic science faculty in 

schools of medicine. Clinical sciences 

faculty in medical schools report an 

average of 7 hours per week, however. 

The average reported for all health professions 

faculty is 6 hours per week. A 

panel of medical educators and administrators 

with the task of assembling criteria 

for an effective school judged the 

amount of research essential to education 

as 0.67 hours in research per hour 

of instructional activity for basic sciences 

and 0.30 hours in research for each 

hour of instructional activity for clinical 

sciences. 20 

Fawcell 38 describes problems related 

to the low commitment to research by 

nursing faculty: 

The low status currently accorded 

research in nursing schools probably 

reflects peer expectations rather than 

those of the parent institution. New 

faculty members model the behavior 

of senior faculty who apparently 

have little commitment to research. It 

is likely then, that lack of proper 

socialization is the predominant^barrier 

to nursing research productivity. 

Perhaps one of the most scholarly approaches 

to the question of faculty commitment 

to research is the study conducted 

by Hesseldenz in 1976 at the 

University of Kentucky, Lexington. 39 

Employing Holland's theory of vocational 

choice, * a multivariate analysis of 

"Persons with similar personality characteristics 

tend to choose occupations which are suitable to 

their temperaments; these persons and occupations 

fall into six general personality categories: 

realistic, investigative, social, conventional, enterprising 

and artistic. 

TABLE 4 

Average Hours Per Week of Full-Time Faculty by Activity Comparing Higher Education in General 

to Health Professions Schools 

Higher Education in General 

Health Professions Schools 

Mean 

Percent 

Effort 

Range 

Mean 

Percent 

Effort 

Range 

Teaching 

33 

60% 24-41 

31 

60% 11-47 

Research 

11 

20% 2-23 

6 

12% 0-16 


• Administrative 

• Professional 

Development 

9 

16% 6-13 

12 

23% 4-22 

Other 

2 

4% 0-6 

3 

5% 0-6 

Mean Total 

55 

49-62 

51 

37-59 

Note: Numbers have been rounded. 


variance showed that faculty members 

of the Holland personality types not 

only differed in effort reported in instruction, 

research, public service, and 

institutional-professional activities, but 

that the findings were supportive of Holland's 

theory. They found that the highest 

hours for the variable "research 

hours" occur in the investigative and 

realistic classifications; the lowest in 

social and artistic categories. According 

to the theory, investigative and realistic 

persons value analytical, scientific and 

research activities more than do social 

and artistic persons. Relating this finding 

to those faculty within the health professions 

schools, this may explain the relatively 

high activity level in research reported 

by the basic science faculty and 

the much lower activity reported among 

those faculty in the clinical sciences. 

According to the Holland theory, the 

investigative and realistic persons—who 

in this study reported the greatest research 

hours—perceive themselves as 

having mechanical ability, to be scholarly 

and intellectually self-confident, but 

to be lacking in human relations and in 

persuasive or leadership ability. In contrast, 

the social persons—who in this 

study reported the fewest research 

hours—perceive themselves as liking to 

help others, understanding others, and 

lacking mechanical and scientific ability. 

They value social and ethical activities 

and problems and acquire human relations 

competencies, to the deficit of 

manual and technical competencies. 

There seems strong compatibility, 

then, between the findings of Hesseldenz 

and the research interests as 

reported in the other studies described. 

Basic scientists by their own interests 

and basic personality traits may seek research 

activity while faculty in the clinical 

sciences—perhaps initially directed 

to this "calling" due to their interest in 

helping people—may avoid research 

activity, again due to their own interests 

and basic personality traits. 

Academic Rank 

The question has been posed in more 

than one study as to whether the various 

elements of faculty load vary as a 

function of academic rank. According to 

Sommers, 22 senior professors traditionally 

have chosen their own schedules 

and tend to select specialized 

courses close to their research interests. 

Such courses often have low enrollments. 

Large introductory courses 

therefore are taught by junior faculty 

who get what their senior colleagues 

have cast aside. In a study at Princeton 

University, 16 it is stated the number of 

teaching hours constituting a full schedule 

differed according to academic rank, 

with professors (PROF) teaching nine 

hours, associate professors (ASOP) ten, 

and assistant professors (ASIP) eleven. 

These differences were a natural source 

of discontent, junior faculty considering 

themselves overworked and senior 

faculty thinking their extra labors were 

unrecognized. Using a unit value system 

attached to each task they discovered, 

however, all were working at about the 

same level, notwithstanding the assigned 

teaching differentials; they merely 

spent their time differently. 

The first question to examine is that 

of total weekly hours reported as a function 

of academic rank. Using as a sample 

those institutions in Table 5, variation 

is noted between total hours 

reported by institution; however, there 

is an amazing consistency in total mean 

hours reported for PROF, ASOP, ASIP 

ranks with lesser hours reported by 

INSR and LECR ranks. This seems consistent 

with the findings at Princeton 

University. 16 Sample size alone could 

account for the lesser hours reported for 

INSR and LECR. 

The second question to examine is 

TABLE 5 

Average Hours Per Week of Full-Time Faculty by Academic Rank 

Humboldt State Northern Mich. University of Madison 

Mean College 50 University 50 Toronto 50 College 40 

Professor 

PROF 

57.3 54.9 58.5 60.0 55.8 

Associate Professor 

ASOP 

57.9 

58.5 

63.0 

56.9 

53.2 

Assistant Professor 

ASIP 

57.9 

57.4 

62.8 

56.9 

54.7 

Instructor 

INSR 

55.8 

54.4 

55.3 

* 

57.9 

Lecturer 

LECR 

52.9 

59.0 

* 

54.8 

45.0 

Mean 

56.4/57.3 

57.1 

59.6 

58.0 

54.8 

* Data not available 


that of percent of time devoted to various 

activities as a function of academic 

rank. Table 6 compares various studies 

with this question in mind. Considering 

these sources there seems to be some 

tendency for teaching activity to decrease 

and public service activity to increase 

the higher the rank. Research 

activities and "other" activities remain 

about the same irrespective of rank as a 

general statement. 

There is not a general agreement on 

such a generalization, however. Jackameit 

40 at Madison College found professors 

and associate professors devoted a 

larger percentage of time to research 

and scholarly activities than was evidenced 

by the college as a whole. However, 

Hesseldenz and Rodgers 41 in a 

comprehensive statistical study of 2,406 

classes taught at the University of Kentucky 

concluded: 

(a) Average credit hours for classes 

taught by assistant professors are significantly 

higher than for classes 

taught by each other rank; (b) contact 

hours for classes taught by professors 

are lower than those for 

classes taught by each other rank; (c) 

associate professors average less effort 

in preparation-grading hours 

than do instructors and the average 

of all other ranks. Instructors spend 

significantly more time in this effort 

than do all other ranks; and (d) professors 

spend less time in average 

class total hours than do assistant 

professors and instructors. Associate 

professors exhibited smaller values 

than assistant professors for this variable. 

Instructors had higher values 

for this variable than any other rank. 

Level of Instruction 

Differentiation of instructional workload 

according to level of instruction is 

presented in a position paper by the 

American Association of University Professors 

(AAUP). 36 The AAUP proposes 

a teaching workload of 9-12 credit 

hours for teachers of predominantly undergraduate 

courses and 6-9 credit 

hours for instruction at the graduate 

level. At most institutions of higher 

learning, the higher the rank of the 

faculty member the higher the level of 

classes taught. If the AAUP guideline is 

followed, one effect is the releasing of 

proportionately greater amounts of time 

to senior faculty members. The release 

of time for what, however, is not clear. 

Since higher-ranked faculty members 

teach more of the higher level courses, 

and some propose that higher level 

courses take greater time in preparation, 

the inference is that higher-ranked 

faculty members spend more total time 

on the courses they teach. But do they? 

This question among others was researched 

at the University of 

Kentucky. 41 In the comparison of level 

of instruction with class total hours, 

there was neither a significant relationship 

overall nor by rank at the .01 level. 

Virtually no relationship was found to 

exist between the level of instruction of 

a class and the total amount of time 

spent on the class; as much time was 

spent on a lower-division class as was 

spent on a graduate class or as little. 

This conclusion is reinforced by studies 

at the University of Maryland. 42 They 

found that the production of student 

credit hours per full-time equivalent 

faculty member varied greatly by segment, 

by level of instruction, and by 

field of knowledge, but the analysis of 

course load information by course level 

revealed nearly constant amounts of 

TABLE 6 

Percent of Time Per Week of Full-Time Faculty by Activity by Academic Rank 

Activity 

X 

On-1 


Maryland" 

Madison 

College 40 

Humboldt St. 

College 50 

State 

Colleges 42 

Private 

Colleges" 

Community 

Colleges 42 

Teaching 


ASOP 

ASIP 

INSR 

LECR 

Mean 

55.5 

61.1 

64.6 

62.6 

— 

60.9 

6.7 

5.5 

6.1 

5.1 

- 

43.8 

50.3 

53.2 

59.8 

* 

54.9 

62.8 

70.2 

55.8 

62.3 

61.9 

64.4 

64.1 

62.3 

73.1 

57.9 

63.5 

64.3 

66.0 

* 

52.9 

60.8 

68.2 

61.3 

* 

61.4 

65.1 

67.6 

70.6 

— 

Research 


ASOP 

ASIP 

INSR 

LECR 

Mean 

17.6 

17.1 

16.4 

15.9 

— 

16.75 

7.6 

8.2 

6.7 

7.0 

- 

30.2 

29.7 

28.0 

24.7 

* 

15.2 

15.6 

13.0 

10.4 

11.1 

7.3 

6.1 

7.8 

6.3 

16.1 

15.5 

13.5 

17.8 

16.6 

* 

21.4 

22.9 

16.8 

22.7 

* 

15.9 

14.8 

14.9 

14.7 

* 



ASOP 

ASIP 

INSR 

LECR 

Mean 

21.8 

16.7 

14.3 

15.2 

- 

17.0 

3.7 

4.9 

4.4 

5.7 

- 

19.2 

13.3 

12.8 

10.2 

* 

27.8 

20.1 

12.9 

18.1 

25.5 

25.0 

23.9 

22.9 

25.5 

9.1 

20.4 

17.8 

13.7 

13.4 

* 

19.9 

10.0 

10.1 

13.2 

* 

18.6 

15.4 

13.5 

10.8 

* 

Other 


ASOP 

ASIP 

INSR 

LECR 

Mean 

5.1 

4.9 

4.7 

6.3 

— 

5.25 

1.7 

1.8 

0.8 

4.7 

— 

6.8 

6.7 

6.0 

5.3 

* 

2.1 

1.5 

3.9 

15.7 

1.1 

5.7 

5.5 

5.2 

5.9 

1.6 

6.2 

5.2 

4.2 

4.0 

* 

5.8 

6.3 

4.9 

2.8 

* 

4.1 

4.7 

4.0 

3.9 

* 

'Data not available. 


time expended in preparation and administration 

per credit hour taught, regardless 

of course levels. 

Other Variables 

Some authors 34 have discussed the 

relative merits of considering other 

variables as class size, nature of the subject 

taught, duplicate sections, previous 

experience and method of presentation. 

There seems little evidence to indicate 

class size per se has much to do with 

teaching load or even educational product 

although there are opinions to the 

contrary. Of perhaps more importance 

is the nature of the subject being taught. 

For example, some 34 have postulated 9 

hours of freshman English is equivalent 

to 15 hours of freshman algebra. "Subject 

matter coefficients" have been proposed 

for use in secondary schools and 

at the college level, such as: English, social 

studies and science, 1.1; foreign 

languages and mathematics, 1.0; shop, 

art, 0.9; and music and physical education, 

0.8. * Duplicate sections, of 

course, add to contact hours and 

evaluation hours but tend to have 

preparation time as a constant. The 

literature is inconclusive on the question 

of preparation time as a function of previous 

teaching experience. Method of 

instruction seems a demonstrable variable, 

however. In a study that included 

11,648 courses, 42 it was found that lecture, 

recitation/discussion and seminar 

methods of instruction averaged between 

1.5 to 1.7 preparation and administration 

hours per credit hour. 

Laboratory instruction averaged 1.3, 

and independent study/tutorial averaged 

0.7-0.8 preparation and administrative 

hours per credit hour. 

Conclusions 

Studies from various institutions report 

faculty spend from 25 to 41 hours 

per week—46% to 74% of their work 

—in teaching activities. A "typical" 

faculty member spends 28 to 33 hours 

weekly in activities that relate to teaching. 

The variability in total hourly work 

week reported tends to be a function of 

time spent in research endeavors rather 

than assigned teaching load. While 

some studies have indicated that some 

reduction in teaching load for faculty 

engaged in research does take place, 

there is evidence to show that larger 

percentages of faculty with heavy work- 

*The reader is referred to Sexson 43 for a comprehensive 

study of hours reported for preparation 

as a function of subject matter taught. 

loads engage in research than do those 

with lighter loads. 

In a study of the educational institutions 

of the eight major health professions, 

it was found the faculty members' 

average week consisted of 23 hours in 

teaching activities; 8 hours in joint 

teaching/patient care or joint research/ 

teaching; 6 hours in independent research; 

3 hours in patient care related 

activities; 2 hours in service activities; 5 

hours in administrative activities; 4 

* 

'?ff 

I 

and artistic areas. 

Faculty report the same total workweek 

hours regardless of academic 

rank, but there seems some tendency 

for teaching activity to decrease and 

public service activity to increase the 

higher the rank. AAUP guidelines propose 

a lesser teaching load for graduate 

faculty as compared to undergraduate 

faculty. In examining whether this release 

time is due to more preparation 

time required for instruction at a higher 

"Studies from various institutions report faculty 

spend from 25 to 41 hours per week—46% to 

74% of their work—in teaching activities." 

hours in professional development; and 

1 hour in writing. Their average work 

week was 51 hours as compared to 55 

hours for higher education in general. 

Research is given more emphasis in 

higher education in general, and public 

service/administrative/personnal development 

is given greater emphasis in 

health professions education. Faculty 

who are in the investigative and realistic 

academic areas report the greatest 

hours spent in research; the fewest 

hours are spent by faculty in the social 

level, it was found no relationship exists 

between the level of instruction of a 

class and the total amount of time spent 

on the class. 

As to method of instruction, it has 

been found that about 1.6 preparation/ 

administration hours per week are required 

for lecture, recitation/discussion 

and seminar methods; laboratory instruction 

averages 1.3 hours per week 

and independent study/tutorial 

methods average 0.75 hours per week 

per credit hour. 


PART III 

Faculty Load Formulas 

%Jne can propose a number of arguments 

for the utility of faculty load formula: 

the balance of activities within an 

individual faculty assignment and 

balance of assignment between faculty; 

the analysis required to assess current 

costs or to construct costs for planning; 

and for accountability in funding. A 

number of attempts have been made to 

develop formulas which take into account 

factors directed toward producing 

a more precise index as to faculty load. 

Moreover, while faculty load formulas 

have been promulgated over the years it 

seems safe to say that at the college 

level no formula for computing faculty 

load has enjoyed wide currency over 

any long period of time nor does any 

formula seem to enjoy widespread favor 

at present. 34 Health professions education 

seems to have ignored the subject 

altogether. Stickler 34 makes this concluding 

statement after reviewing a host 

of publications on the subject: "... only 

one conclusion seems to be fully substantiated: 

the total faculty load of a college 

or university teacher cannot be simply 

described nor easily measured." 

It seems in this comment lies the key 

to the solution. Many studies have oversimplified 

the description of load, mainly 

from limited measures if any measures 

at all. The design of a load formula 

must include those elements generally 

perceived as faculty related activity, 

take into account appropriate 

weighting factors for each, and yet remain 

sufficiently uncluttered as a formula 

that potential users endorse its 

use. 

The term "faculty load" includes the 

sum of all activities which take the time 

of a college or university teacher and 

which are related either directly or indirectly 

to his or her professional duties, 

responsibilities and interests. 34 Perhaps 

the most common measure of faculty 

load in institutions of higher learning has 

been the credit hour—semester or quarter. 

A presumption is made that there is 

some constant ratio between credit hour 

load and total faculty load. The discussion 

thus far indicates such a measure 

lacks completeness in many respects 

even though it enjoys common usage. 

"Student credit hours" (SCH), 

another measure, is determined by multiplying 

the credit hours for a course by 

the number of students in the class. The 

sum of these figures for all classes taught 

gives the total student credit hours generated 

for a given teacher. This approach 

adds the element of class size. It 

has been said an average of 300 student 

credit hours per instructor constitutes a 

reasonable norm. 34 This figure has been 

used as a reference point in making instructional 

cost analyses. 

"Student contact hours"—or "teaching 

clock hours"—is yet another way of 

measuring class load. This makes allowance 

for the extra time spent in courses 

as science laboratories. Different types 

of institutions have shown median load 

ranges from 14.4 to 18.2 student contact 

hours per week. 34 Junior colleges 

tend to exceed this and commonly consider 

20-25 student contact hours per 

week to be a normal workload. 

"Total clock hours" worked per week 

rather than credit hours or student contact 

hours is perhaps the best single index 

of faculty load; the major advantage 

is the inclusion of activities such as 

research and the whole spectrum of 

professional services in addition to 

teaching and its concomitant responsibilities. 

Unit Systems 

While total clock hours per week may 

offer the best single index of faculty load 

this statement gives little hint as to the 

application of this approach, especially 

when considering faculty load assignment. 

Various unit systems have been 

proposed as a means of dealing with the 

elements of load in some relative 

fashion so as to predict a total clock 

hour week from activities assigned. 

Such a system was reported by Howell 31 

in 1962 pertaining to the Northern Illinois 

University. Differing point values 

were assigned for factors as undergraduate 

work taught, graduate work 

taught, each hour taught in extension, 

enrollments over a base of 30 in each 

class, advisees, committee participation, 

and holding office in a state or national 

organization. 

A point system also was developed 

for use in the School of Nursing, University 

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 3 Utilizing 

the three broad categories of "teaching," 

"research" and "service," point 

values were assigned various activities 

as a means of achieving a relative 

weighting. 

A comprehensive unit approach was 

developed for use at Colorado State 

University. 44 Termed the "comparative 

staffing unit" (CSU), these units quantified 

the direct instructional, related instructional 

and related professional activities 

of faculty members. The method 

measured estimated faculty input taking 

into account type of course, level of 

course, number of students per course 

and whether courses were initial or 

repeat sections. Student advising, committee 

assignments and related professional 

activities also specifically were 

recognized. 

In short, the system allowed for the 

identification and quantification of significant 

activities in which faculty members 

are involved. A comparative staffing 

unit (CSU) is intended to measure 

the relative amount of professional input 

necessary to carry out a specific activity. 

By definition, a full-time university 

instructional faculty position consists of 

1,000 CSUs (1,000 CSUs = 1.0FTE). 

For example, should the individual 

components of a faculty member's 

workload add to 1200 CSUs, it would 

indicate an overload of 20 percent. For 

direct instructional activities, the basic 

unit of instructional workload is defined 

as one credit hour of lecture in a typical 

undergraduate course. Activities requiring 

less faculty input are assigned a 

lower workload factor; those requiring 

more faculty input are assigned a higher 

workload factor. 

Formulary 

The formula approach to measuring 

workload has been reported by several 

authors in the early 70s. 13 . 45 ' 46 ' 47 ' 48 ' 49 

The formulas provide for the inclusion 

of factors as type of course, contact 


class hours, duplicate courses, and 

number of students. 

Wendel 45 presents a model for measuring 

workload. The overall formula 

appears within the ratio: 

TA = SR 

TA% SR% 

Teaching and advising (TA) is determined 

by use of specific formulas. TA 

percent and SR (service and research) 

percent are determined by calculating 

the percentage of time reported by 

faculty in those various duties; and SR is 

determined by solving for the unknown. 

The formula for teaching load includes 

provisions for: a subject coefficient 

for each type of course, i.e., 

undergraduate, graduate, or skill; the 

number of hours spent in class; allowance 

for duplicate courses; and the 

number of students compared with a 

norm class of twenty students. 

The formula is: 

PUP 

Teaching = SC (Hn- 10 ) + 

(NSn-20Hn) 

100 

The subject coefficient (SC) is 0.8 for 

skill courses in labs; 1.0 for undergraduate 

academic courses; and 1.2 for 

graduate courses. Hn represents the 

number of hours in class per week. DUP 

represents duplicate courses or sections, 

and NSn is the number of students. 

Advising load is measured by a table 

of weighted factors for each advisory 

classification.* The number of advisees 

in each classification is multiplied by the 

designated load coefficient. These products 

are added and divided by five to 

provide the advisor load coefficient. 

The formula for teaching (T) and advising 

(A) includes teaching load of all 

terms —fall, winter,spring and summer 

—plus advising load. 

TA = T f + T W +T S + T SS +T 

The service and research load coefficient 

can be obtained within the ratio: 

TA = SR 

TA% SR% 

Load indices for teaching and advising 

(TA) are computed by the process previously 

outlined. The other parts of the 

ratio, TA percent, SR and SR percent, 

are determined as follows: 

1. Faculty members report the estimated 

hours per week for advising, in- 

"Master's candidate with thesis 2.0; member of 

doctoral committee 0.5; chairman of a doctoral 

committee 1.5; advisor to doctoral student while 

writing 15.0; member of doctoral reading committee 

2.5. 

struction, preparation and grading, research 

and scholarly work, administration, 

faculty committees, and other 

types of activities. 

2. The percentages of time spent on 

teaching/advising (TA) and in service/ 

research (SR) are computed from the 

estimated number of hours reported in 

each case of the categories listed earlier 

(see footnote). These computations 

provide TA percent and SR percent. 

3. Three parts of the formula are determined: 

TA by formula, and TA percent 

and SR percent by means of the 

data gathered on how time was spent. 

.». 

relate to contact hours, credit hours, 

number of students, and number of 

class preparations. The system seems 

excessively complex as compared to 

others. 

Adams 27 suggests certain modifications 

to a formula developed originally 

by Sexon 35 who had approached its 

design via an extensive study of time 

charts kept by teachers. The Adams's 

formula is expressed as follows: 

x +0.7x +0.03y = hours per week 

for classroom functions where x is contact 

hours (laboratory hours 2 for 1); 

0.7 x is time for preparation; y is num- 

"The design of a load formula must include those 

elements generally perceived as faculty related 

activity, take into account appropriate weighting 

factors for each, and yet remain sufficiently 

uncluttered as a formula that potential users 

endorse its use." 

4. The SR coefficient, or unknown, is 

then computed within the ratio. 

The end result produces indices tor 

teaching, advising, service and research, 

and total load for each faculty 

member. 

Archer 46 reports on formula developed 

at Virginia Western Community 

College in 1974. This formula is based 

on the concept of equated hours; the 

number of equated hours is computed 

by adding certain specified amounts to a 

workload data bank (B). These subsets 

ber of student hours produced; and 

0.02 y is hours spent in evaluation. 

Other time allocations are: 10 hours 

per week for research when approved 

by research committee; 10 hours per 

week for heading department; 6 hours 

per week for each course for independent 

study; 3 hours per week additional 

for each graduate course; 3 hours per 

week for each preparation beyond 

three; and 0.5 hours per week additional 

for each student teacher supervised. 


Parsons 48 reported in 1976 on a formula 

used at Golden West College. It 

uses five different variables thought to 

reflect the minimum number of principal 

parameters necessary to measure a 

teaching load: 

IH . NP . SE . OA 

A "*" B ' C D 

PA 

E 

x 100 = total teaching load in percent 

IH is weekly instruction hours; NP is 

different class preparations; SE is weekly-student 

contact hours (WSCH); OA 

is out-of-class assignments in hours/ 

week; and PA is paraprofessional assistance 

provided, (Expressed as 0.08 x 

HRS or 2% per hour of instruction work 

credit subtracted from the total teaching 

load.) 

A is the standard teaching load of 15 

hours/week; B is the standard teaching 

load reference of five different class 

preparations/week; C is the standard 

teaching load reference of 500 

WSCH.* (Found by multiplying the 

class enrollment by the number of 

weekly class hours and expressed as the 

sum of all classes; D is the standard 

teaching load reference of five hours/ 

week of out-of-class duties (excludes office 

hours for student advising); and E is 

one in the equation. 

Table 7 pictures five sample faculty 

with this system applied. 

Other Approaches 

Eagleton 49 reports on a workload formula 

that was developed by faculty at 

the Pennsylvania State University. Their 

formula blocks workload into teaching 

and advising; research and graduate 

study; service to university, profession 

and public; and scholarship and professional 

development, using weighted 

point values that indicate a total load for 

an entire semester. 

Faculty workload has been ignored, 

in the main, by educators in the health 

professions. Holliman, 13 a nursing educator, 

does discuss a unique but 

straightforward approach to analyzing 

faculty workload. The end in view was 

to determine the need for additional 

faculty. Step one in this system is to 

establish time norms for an academic 

year. 

Non-productive time, 

in days/year/person 

20 vacation 

5 sick leave 

104 weekends 

14 holidays 

143 total rounded to 140 

days/year/person 

Productive time, 

in days/year/person 

365-140 = 225 productive days 

Step two is to calculate an individual 

teacher workload profile. This is accomplished 

by subtracting the time commitments 

per element within the assigned 

load from the productive days. For example, 

5 days for continuing education, 

9 days for committee work (6 hours/ 

month), 5 days for annual faculty meeting 

and curriculum reviews. This gives a 

balance of days to be assigned to class/ 

clinical/preparation time. The ratio for 

preparation is class 2:1 and clinical 1:3. 

A course that would meet for 23 class 

hours would be computed as consuming 

a faculty member's time as follows: 

23 hours class -I- 46 hours preparation 

(23 x 2) for a total of 69. All such teaching 

time computations are totaled, converted 

to days by dividing by 8, and 

then subtracted from the productive 

time available. Load balances are thus 

achieved by juggling the assignments 

given and the productive days available, 

both expressed in days/year. 

Still another approach to faculty load 

assignment expresses the various activities 

as a percent of total effort. While 

some hourly assumptions per activity 

must be made to arrive at assigned percent 

of effort, this system has the advantage 

of elasticity for the work-habit 

variations that tend to exist within any 

group of faculty. This particular 

methodology is currently employed 

within the College of Optometry, Pacific 

University. Not unlike the productive 

time approach of Holliman, 13 the first 

step is to compute the gross number of 

productive days available within the 

faculty contract period taking into account 

days dedicated to all university 

and college functions and holidays. Net 

productive days are then converted to 

net productive hours per contract 

period per faculty member. This number 

becomes the denominator constant 

for computing percent of effort per assigned 

activity. Teaching activities are 

determined using the following subformula: 

Total time for lecture/seminar classes 

= contact hours x 3 (allows 2 for 1 

preparation time); total time for laboratory 

classes = contact hours x 1.5 

(allows V2 for 1 preparation time); total 

time for clinical supervision = contact 

hours; and total time for thesis supervision 

= 2 hours/week of thesis course 

enrollment. 

•Reference standard obtained by using a typical 

class enrollment figure of no less than 32 nor more 

than 35 students enrolled as a nominal value. 

WSCH is weekly student contact hours. 

TABLE 7 

An Example of the Work Load of Five Faculty Using System Employed by Golden West College 

(Health Sciences) 

Faculty 

Member 

Instruction 

Hours/Week 

IH 

15 

Number of 

Preparations 

NP 

5 

Weekly 

Student 

Contact Hrs. 

WSCH 

500 

Outside 

Assignments 

Hrs./Week 

5 

Paraprofessional 

Assistance 

Total Load 

Factor in 

Percent 

A 

17.25 

1.15 

4.5 

0.90 

545 

1.09 

4 

0.80 

0 

98.50 

B 

17.25 

1.15 

3.5 

0.70 

672 

1.34 

7.5 

1.50 

-0.64 

101.25 

C 

8.88 

0.59 

1.67 

0.33 

601 

1.20 

8.0 

1.60 

0 

93.05 

D 

13.0 

0.87 

3.5 

0.70 

428 

0.86 

12.25 

2.45 

0.52 

109.00 

E 

21.25 

1.42 

1.75 

0.35 

772 

1.54 

4.5 

0.90 

-0.10 

102.85 


Each of these subfigures becomes the 

numerator for the percent of effort in 

each activity. A blanket amount of 3% 

is set aside for each faculty member for 

university service activities such as committee 

and faculty meetings. Also a 

blanket amount of 17% is assigned for 

personal growth activities. The balance 

of time in percent is assigned to scholarly 

development. Each faculty member is 

expected to file an activity plan with the 

dean indicating how he or she plans to 

satisfy this area of their total faculty 

load. These plans are evaluated and updated 

annually. 

Many of these approaches, including 

the last described, lend themselves to 

the generation of management data. A 

chart that includes each faculty member 

by activity can be constructed enabling 

computation of composite college, divisional 

or departmental effort per activity. 

In other words, it becomes possible 

to compute total FTE faculty effort dedicated 

to each of scheduled teaching, 

thesis advising, clinic supervision and 

scholarly development. Of course, 

equalizing of load per faculty member 

can, as easily, be accomplished. 

x 

Concluding Comments 

As a means of summarizing findings 

of the literature on faculty workload, a 

series of statements follow that might be 

regarded as "load laws." 

1. In framing the major broad elements 

of faculty load the basic guide is 

the mission of the institution. Large 

multi-university, research-oriented institutions 

have demonstrated the largest 

commitment to research, while community 

colleges have demonstrated the 

least. The health professions schools 

generally place somewhat lesser emphasis 

on research but greater emphasis 

on public service and professional 

development than the research oriented 

institutions within higher education in 

general. Consequently the load of any 

particular individual faculty member will 

tend to be a reflection of institutional 

mission. 

2. Hours per week spent in research 

activity by any individual faculty are primarily 

a function of the academic area 

and individual interest rather than the 

release-from-teaching-time provided. 

Faculty in investigative and realistic 

areas spend the most time in research; 

the fewest hours are spent by faculty in 

the social and artistic areas. As to faculty 

in health professions schools, basic 

science faculty may spend twice the 

"In framing the major broad elements of faculty load the 

basic guide is the mission of the institution. Large multiuniversity, 

research-oriented institutions have 

demonstrated the largest commitment to research, while 

community colleges have demonstrated the least." 

time at research than do faculty in the 

clinical sciences. 

3. In general, most faculty report a 

50 to 55 hour week. The total hourly 

work week is not a factor of academic 

rank or level of instruction. 

4. Preparation and evaluation time 

required for course work is not a function 

of level of instruction but is a function 

of method of instruction and also 

subject matter. About 1.6 preparation/ 

administration hours per week per 

credit hour are required to lecture, recitation/discussion 

and seminar methods, 

and 1.3 preparation/administration 

hours per week per credit hour are 

required for laboratory instruction. 

Independent study/tutorial methods require 

0.75 preparation/administrator 

hours per week per credit hour. Subject 

coefficients (multipliers) are sometimes 

employed as a means of establishing 

balance between those academic areas 

that require greater time in preparation 

of material. 

5. The design of a load formula must 

include those elements generally perceived 

as faculty related activity, must 

take into account appropriate weighting 

factors for each, and yet remain sufficiently 

uncluttered as a formula that potential 

users endorse its use. 

Aside from essential managerial information 

realized from faculty load 

studies, there exist two underlying fundamental 

principles: that equity is 

important—equity among individual 

faculty members, among departments 

and among institutions; and that there is 

a relationship between workload and 

the quality of education. • 


References 

1. Reeves F, Russell JD. Instructional loads. 

College Organization and Administration. 

Indianapolis, Ind., Board of Education, 

Disciples of Christ, 1929; pp. 165-82. 

2. Laughlin, Stanley J, Lestrud VA. Faculty 

Load and Faculty) Activity Analysis: Who 

Considers the Individual Faculty Member. 

Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the 

Association for Institutional Research, Los 

Angeles, 1976. 

3. Saylor AA, Kaylor LE, Genthe D, Otis E. 

Guidelines for faculty work load. Am J Nurs 

1979; 79:902-904. 

4. Wendel FC. The faculty member's work 

load. Improving Coll Univ Teaching 1977; 

25:82-84. 

5. Lombardi J. Faculty Work Load. Topical 

Paper No 46, Los Angeles, California Univ, 

ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information, 

1974. 

6. Doi J et al. The uses of faculty work load 

data. In Faculty Work Load: A Conference 

Report, Kevin Bunnel, ed. Washington, DC, 

American Council on Education, 1960. 

7. Sullivan RH. Preface in Faculty Workload: A 

Conference Report, Kevin Bunnel, ed. 

Washington, DC, American Council on 

Education, 1960. 

8. Marton RK. The teacher's job load. Improving 

Coll Univ Teaching 1965; 13:155-156. 

9. Hicks JW. Faculty work load—an overview. 

In Faculty Work Load: A Conference 



10. Michell E. The need for time analysis of instruction. 

J Higher Educ 1937; 8:311-314. 

11. Stecklein JE. How to Measure Faculty Work 

Load. Washington, DC, American Council 

on Education, 1961. 

12. Wessel RH. Teaching loads and educational 

performance. Liberal Educ 1966; 52(3): 

339-346. 

13. Holliman JM. Analyzing faculty work load. 

Nurs Outlook 1977; 25(ll):721-723. 

14. Axt RG. Assumptions underlying present 

ways of measuring faculty load. In Faculty 

Work Load: A Conference Report, Kevin 

Bunnel, ed. Washington, DC, American 

Council on Education, 1960. 

15. Axt RG et al. Methods and techniques for 

measuring faculty work load. In Faculty 

Work Load: A Conference Report, Kevin 

Bunnel, ed. Washington, DC, American 

Council on Education, 1960. 

16. Starr SF. A fair measure for faculty work 

loads. Educ Rec 1973, Feb; 54(4):313-315. 

17. Stoddard GL. Effort-reporting and cost 

analysis of medical education. J Med Educ 

1973; 48:814-823. 

18. Koehler JE, Slighton RL. Activity analysis 

and cost analysis in medical schools. J Med 

Educ 1973; 48:531-556. 

19. Association of American Medical Colleges, 

Committee on the Financing of Medical 

Education. Undergraduate medical education: 

elements, objectives, costs. J Med 

Educ 1974; 49:101-128. 

20. Report of a Study: Costs of Education in the 

Health Professions (Parts 1,2 and 3). Washington, 

DC, National Academy of Sciences, 

Institute of Medicine, 1974. 

21. Harper RL, Gonyea MA. Cost Analysis of 

Ten Allied Health Education Programs. Columbus, 

Ohio, The Ohio State University, 

1977. 

22. Sommers AN. University productivity. Educ 

Rec 1977; 57:251-256. 

23. Enochs JB. Problems of defining faculty 

load. In Faculty Work Load: A Conference 



24. Starkey RW. Faculty Activity Analysis. A 

Study of Faculty Responsibilities for Instruction, 

Research, and Public Service. San 

Diego, California, The University of California, 

1977. 

25. Swofford R. Faculty accountability, work 

load, and evaluation/a synthesis. Comm 

Coll Frontiers 1978; 6:51-53. 

26. Creswell JW. Faculty acceptance of a work 

load survey in one major university. Res 

Higher Educ 1978; 8:205-226. 

27. Durham GH. The uses and abuses of faculty 

load data. In Faculty Work Load: A Conference 

Report, Kevin Bunnel, ed. Washington, 

DC, American Council on Education, 

1960. 

28. Witmer DR. Wisconsin State Universities 

Report on Work Load of Teaching Faculty 

Fall Term 1970-71. Madison, Wisconsin, 

Wisconsin Board of Regents of State Universities, 

1971. 

29. Charters WW. How much do professors 

work? J Higher Educ 1942; 13:298-301. 

30. Heiss AM. The Utilization of the College and 

University Teacher. Berkeley, California, 

University of California, Berkeley Center for 

Research and Development in Higher 


31. Howell CE. A concept of the measurement 

of faculty load. Jr Exp Educ 1962; 

31:121-128. 

32. Harper RI. Faculty activity analysis. New 

Directions Instit Res 1978; 17:73-81. 

33. Fairweather R. The Faculty Work Week at 

the University of Connecticut. Storrs, Connecticut, 

The University of Connecticut, 

1976. 

34. Stickler WH. Working material and bibliography 

on faculty load. In Faculty Work 

Load: A Conference Report, Kevin Bunnel, 

ed. Washington, Dc, American Council on 


35. Sexson JE. A method for computed faculty 

load. Improving Coll Univ Teaching 1967; 

15:219-222. 

36. American Association of University Professors. 

Statement on Faculty Work Load. 

American Association of University Professors 

Policy Documents and Reports, Washington, 

DC, AAUP, 1973. 

37. Brand RH. Faculty Teaching Loads—A 

Brief Review. AIBS Educ Rev 1978; 7:6-10. 

38. Fawcett J. Integrating research into the 

faculty work load. Nus Outlook 1979; 27(3): 

259-62. 

39. Hesseldenz JS. Personality-Based Faculty 

Work Load Analysis. Res Higher Educ 

1976; 5:321-334, 

40. Jackameit WP. Survey of Faculty Activities 

(Madison College). Harrisonburg, Virginia, 

Madison College, 1977. 

41. Hesseldenz JS, Rodgers SA. An analysis of 

predictors of instruction work effort. Res 

Higher Educ 1976; 8:119-234. 

42. Maryland Council for Higher Education. 

Faculty Activity Survey. Annapolis, 1975. 

43. Sexson JE. A study to determine teacher 

load factors at Colorado State College, 

research study #1. Dissertation Abstracts 

1962 June; 22:4228. 

44. Wing KE. Comparative Staffing Units as a 

Measure of University Instructional Work 

Load. Fort Collins, Colorado, Colorado 

State University, Fort Collins, Office of University 

Planning and Budgets, 1975. 

45. Wendel FC. The fifteen hour work week- 

Parkinson's Law at its best, Educ Planning 

1973; 2:22-27. 

46. Archer JA. Quantifying Faculty Work 

Loads. Roanoke, Virginia, Virginia Western 

Community College, Roanoke Office of Institutional 

Research, 1974. 

47. Adams WH. Faculty load. Improving Coll 

Univ Teaching 1976; 24:215-218. 

48. Parson GL. An Assessment of the Impact of 

Implementing Innovative Teaching Methods 

on Teaching Loads at Golden WestCollege, 

EdD dissertation, Nova University, 1976. 

49. Eagleton LC. Faculty work load measurement 

at Penn State. Chem Engineer Educ 

1977; 11:130-134. 

50. Lawson DF. Summary of the Spring Quarter 

1971: Faculty Time Use Study at Humboldt 

State College. Areata, California, Humboldt 

State College, 1971. 


* A „1 has been accomplished to en- 

Over the past year, a great ^ ^ 

h th(? 

ânce the quality and state of optomefr ^ the purassociation 

A move to new off^- 

along with exchase 

of a Wang word proce*°r ancTP ^ fevenU(? 

fandod cap^^-î^ps toward allow inggP an- 

^ ^ ^ o l a m s which will benefit the ASCO 

^ -"ools of optometry< adde^ ^ £*£ 

ve^now bring the total n ^ ^ ^ e ln Puerto Rico, 

dude 15 in the U.S.. two in Canada ^ g lotal 

ciuae w students now gradual y entering 

B 

pi- 9 ** 

WW. 

tea 

mnducted during l.«*i-o«. 83 rk year. 

IfflS 

V 

°' Cho^tt'W .- areas,,« receive 3reaKr 

SSs during commêar. 

i 

-—nMq 

______ _ ' --~-&&4t 

Vn/ii'm: .V. N'llHlbfr / SliHH'ici 1

Goals: Student 

Recruitment 

Goals: Personnel 

Development 

Recruitment Activities 

The Council on Student Affairs 

iCSA) has continued rigorous activities 

in the areas of student recruitment 

over the pasi year Meeting with Ihe 

AOA Division of Education and Man 

power in St. Louis in October, the 

council's Project Team on Student Re 

cruitment set specific goals and priori 

ties for the year'.- recruitment projects. 

Target states were determined using 

current manpower distribution and 

population data, and a model student 

recruitment program was developed 

and utilised in Texas. Several national 

career guidance materials also were reviewed 

and updated, and a national 

recruitment poster was designed and 

produced and will be distributed during 

the summer of 1982. 

In addition 10 these recruitment efforts, 

relationships with national or 

gani/ations representing students and 

health advisors were strengthened during 

the. year. CSA representatives met 

with the American Optomeiric Student 

Association (AOSA) leadership in 

January to discuss common goals and 

concerns, anil regional and national 

meetings of health advisors included 

optometry program involvement. In 

addition. ASCO provided a grant for 

continued financial support to ihe National 

Association of Advisors in the 

Health Professions (NAAHP). 

The OCAT applicant figures point 

up the continuing challenge in the recruitment 

area. OCAT applications for 

the last three academic years are as 

follows: 

1979-80 2.701 

iyso-Ki 2.;m 

1981-82 2.03b 

A recruitment management seminar 

held in Kansas City during the year 

was attended by 24 admissions officers 

and staff representing fourteen of the 

schools. It is hoped thai ihe ideas 

gleaned from this seminar further will 

help the schools modernise and 

streamline local admissions efforts and 

that national recruitment efforts will 

help stem this declining applicant tide. 

Financial Assistance 

In addition to recruitment activities, 

the Council on Student Affairs developed 

and submitted a plan for optimum 

use of the ASCO Student Kn 

dowment Fund, established last year 

from a gift to the association. The plan 

provides for distribution of the fund's 

investment return to be used solely for 

the. financial assistance of optometry 

students. The funds will be distributed 

to each active and provisional member 

institution of ASCO on a per capita 

basis, with the individual schools being 

responsible for developing and im 

piementing internal policies and pro 

cedures for the disbursement and accounting 

of the funds. 

Also during the year. ASCO contributed 

"52.500 to the United Student 

Aid Fund (USAF) from funds accrued 

from the ASCO Student Endowment 

Fund. The USAF provides an additional 

source of student financial 

assistance for optometry students. 

A student indebtedness survey completed 

during the year will assist in 

providing a more accurate accounting 

of the incurred debts of optometry 

graduates. This project received 100 

percent participation from within the 

privately funded schools and partial 

participation of schools under public 

control. The data will he used to 

establish levels of grant anil loan need 

for various governmental agencies. 

I)' /.I'siii 1 V Wuiitis ttl lir.rtK'y-l I r.ti Hirni- InfITIlU.'.'ll'lll. 

1 !. (."/(liTn-S l(K)i I;:.VI."S flrlJ of'lt'FS Of 

!'!i* AS( 'O -'iiiiii* c»! v. Pi/i'>i:!i": '.'I'.'IJ ci'i.'-.'Ptj 

Faculty and Curriculum 

Development 

A faculty development workshop 

planned and carried out by the Conn 

cil on Academic Affairs (CAA) in December. 

1981. was attended by over 

forty faculty members and administrators 

representing eight optometric institutions. 

The workshop focused on a 

number of topics, including the inte 

gration of course outlines and behavioral 

objectives, techniques of measurement 

and evaluation, clinical competency 

evaluation, and other innova 

live, teaching strategies. 

Initial planning also took place, 

under a second CAA project for a personnel 

needs inventory among the 

schools and colleges of optometry to 

forecast faculty and administrative 

needs of optometric institutions to the 

yer 2000. In addition, work began on 

the determination of educational resources 

for the development of per 

sound within optometric education. 

Another project -a study of the 

common core curriculum among the 

schools of optometry -also is being 

conducted by the CAA. Roughly one.- 

third of the member institutions have 

participated to date, and the majorityhave 

indicated they plan to participate. 

This promises to be the most thorough 

and detailed study of the curriculum 

within optometric education. Its usefulness 

will extend from intracurricular re 

view within the member schools lo describing 

a national common curriculum 

to becoming the basis for a topical outline 

for examining boards. 

24 

•loumul of Optometric Hducnuon

Goals: 

Management Data 

Information 

Future Planning 

Clinical Data Base 

One of the basic needs within optometric 

education has been the requirement 

to describe clinical activity 

in a consistent manner within optometry. 

This information is needed both 

from a patient delivery standpoint and 

an educational resource standpoint. 

Over the past year, the Council on Institutional 

Affairs (CIA) has continued 

work on the development of a standardized 

data base for optometric education 

to be used for educational research, 

clinical, and management purposes. 

A thorough literature review 

has been conducted with various protocol 

systems being designed to create 

compatibility with the various data processing 

approaches utilized in some of 

the schools and colleges today. Well 

started into the first year, this project is 

expected to be better realized during 

the upcoming year of activity. 

AOA Planning Session 

ASCO participated in the American 

Optometric Association's (AOA) 

meeting and planning session held in 

San Antonio. ASCO President Dr. 

Willard B. Bleything and Executive 

Director Lee W. Smith participated in 

discussions with the AOA Division of 

Education and Manpower in their 

planning and made a presentation to 

the AOA Inter Association Task Force 

to describe ASCO relationships and 

contacts with other organizations. 

ASCO also will be cooperating with 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS) in the upcoming 

year, along with other members of 

FASHP, to establish a new health professions 

student award program. This 

program will recognize students who 

develop proposals in disease prevention 

and health promotion. The program 

is to be implemented this coming 

year. 

Long-Range Study 

A proposal for a long-range study of 

optometry and optometric education 

has been launched over the past year 

in conjunction with the American 

Optometric Association (AOA). The 

proposal developed by a combined 

AOA/ASCO committee is being sponsored 

by the American Council on 

Education to a number of private 

foundations in an attempt to find 

necessary funding for the study. While 

contacts to date have not been very 

successful, discussions continue with at 

least three major foundations, and 

there is every expectation that appropriate 

funding will be found for the 

study. 

New Academic Appointments 

Over the past year, the following 

changes in academic administration 

have taken place. Dr. Boyd B. Banwell 

was appointed president of the 

Illinois College of Optometry following 

the resignation of Dr. Alfred A. 

Rosenbloom, Jr., after ten years as 

ICO's president. In addition, Dr. Arthur 

A. Afanador was appointed dean 

of the School of Optometry at Inter 

American University of Puerto Rico. 

Dr. Henry W. Hofstetter, who previously 

served as acting dean at Inter 

American University, returned as Rudy 

professor emeritus at Indiana University 

School of Optometry. Dr. Larry R. 

Clausen, formerly of Pacific University 

College of Optometry has been appointed 

dean of academic affairs at 

New England College of Optometry. 

$ 

^ 

* * 

tS :'"" 

Julie Demaree , ASCO liaison from the 

American Optometric Student Association 

(AOSA), discusses student issues and conct 

at the ASCO Annual Meeting in June. 

i3* i 

Members of the AOA State LegislatH 

and guests on the concept of primar 

Affairs Advisory Committee address ASCO 

?are at the ASCO Annua! Meeting. 

members 

Volume ti. Number 1 • Summer ]')H2 25

ASCO 

Centra! 


Legislation and 

Appropriations 

This has been a difficult year in 

dealing with Congress There has been 

little or no new legislation of direct impact 

on optometric education How 

ever. ASCO has been actively involved 

:n responding to major attempts 

to reduce health professions 

education and general appropriations 

which proposed reduction of available 

loans, scholarships and other support 

programs for optomeiry students. It 

appears, at this time, that efforts have 

been successful in influencing the Congress 

to rexain eligibility of professional 

students for loans under the Guaranteed 

Student Loan (GSL) program, 

and that some level of funding of the 

capital fund for Health Professions 

Student Loans iHPSl.). and a limited 

amount of funds for "special projecrs" 

have been retained. All of these at 

one time were proposed for termina 

tion. 

The ASCO National Office also provided 

support for students of optome. 

try participating in a student march on 

Washington day March 1. Some forty 

optometry students joined the national 

association of students in Washington. 

D.C.. to visit congressional offices to 

encourage continued support for programs 

providing student loans and 

scholarships ASCO cooperated by 

contacting some twenty key congres 

sional offices for visitation arrangements 

and preparing a one page summary 

statement of student assistance 

issues for distribution to the congressmen. 

HRA Contract 

In September. 1981. ASCO was 

awarded a contract by the I lealth Resources 

Administration. Department of 

Health and Human Services, to con 

duct a follow-up study of oprometry 

graduates to determine practice patterns 

and licensure experiences. The 

contract, valued at about SI20.000. 

will last for an eighteen-month period 

and has a target date for completion 

of March 30. 1983 Utilizing a number 

of consultants headed by Dr. Penelope 

Kegel-Flom of the University of Houston 

College of Optometry, a preliminary 

questionnaire has been submitted 

to the Health Resources Administra 

tion for approval. It is anticipated that 

the questionnaire will be distributed to 

the survey group some time during the 

summer of 1982. Dr. Robert Bleimann 

has been employed by ASCO on a 

full-time basis to manage the project, 

and a pan-time research assistant also 

has been employed. 

Panelists (I ro r) Hubert Hvane\. M D . of Creightan Uniivrsitv. .1 Stephen bnr.lh 1'h P . or the 

IJnirersili: of Alabama in Hirminqliam und Frsdrrlck I lvbbanl. O U PhD Oh.u Slate l'-"-i VTOil' 

answered questions rona-Tiim) theu aciulcmu heuilh i.enl"i p>ii;jinni. nr the ASl'i) simposw 

(uriJiCiiii held during rfi.-s year's Animal Mffiimj 

26 

New Member Sections 

Ar the ASCO annual meeting in 

June. 1981. the association approved 

three new membership categories 

which provide for sectional membership 

in the following areas: (1) sustaining 

member section - manufacturers 

and distributors of ophthalmic and related 

equipment and supplies: (2) 

paraoptometric education section -accredited 

institutions which offer programs 

in the education of paraoptometric 

personnel: and (3) non-profit 

agency section —non-profit agencies or 

institutions which carry out an affiliated 

optometric education program with an 

active member of the association 

Eligible organizations may affiliate with 

the association upon petition to the 

executive committee and upon a twothirds 

majority vote of the board of 

directors. 

During the past year, draft application 

forms and introductory materials 

have been developed for review and 

approval for the new memberships. It 

is hoped that about ten to fifteen sustaining 

members can be elicited for the 

association during the coming year. 

Meeting Sessions 

During the year, the association participated 

in two meetings of the Association 

of Academic Health Centers, 

the American Optometric Association 

mid year meeting and the tripartite 

meeting of the IAB. NBKO. and 

ASCO". 

In addition to nearly monthly meet 

ings of the Federation of Associations 

of Schools of the 1 lealth Professions 

(FASHP). ASCO was represented at 

the AOSA Congress, national meetings 

of the National Association of Ad 

visors in the Health Professions and a 

Veterans Administration workshop on 

residency stipend levels. In this atypical 

budget year ASCO has met frequently 

with the Coalition for 1 lealth 

Funding which has carried a significant 

load in influencing the health budget 

in the House and Senate. 

,/ournci/ of Opiontettic 

/.'duration

Journal Report 

The Journal of Optometric liducti 

tion continues on a solid footing this 

year with an ample backlog of rnanu 

scripts for publication, positive feedback 

from out readers, A steady base 

of subscriptions and distribution, and 

another award for "Best National Op 

tometric Journal." The maior problem 

that still impedes further progress and 

expansion is obtaining a "sufficient advertising 

base lo help underwrite some 

of the Journal's costs. 

Editorial Content 

Four issues were published during 

the past year containing a total of l'> 

papers and reports. Fifteen of these 

were original papers, and four were 

ASCO or staff-prepared reports. The 

issues highlighted four topics of concern 

and interest: (1) accreditation and 

credentialing: (2) clinical competence 

measurement in optometry: (3) quality 

assurance in off-campus clinical training 

programs: and (4) geriatric and rehabilitative 

optometry. 

Papers on continuing education, test 

construction, and a profile of the new 

Inter American University of Puerto 

Rico. School of Optometry, were 

highlighted: as well as the ASCO Annual 

Report, a summary of the COE 

Annual Survey of Optometric Educational 

Institutions, a condensed report 

on the ASCO developed educational 

plan for rehabilitative optometry, and 

results of JOE's Reader Survey. 

In addition to the above papers and 

reports, two oilier significant com 

rnunications were published: "A 

Primary Health Care Model" by Dr. 

William R. Baldwin and the "Future of 

Optometric Education" by Dr. Henrv 

B. Peters. Also, a new column entitled 

"NEI Report." was added which will 

review information about the National 

Eye Institute, including latest 

development-,, research priorities, 

grant development lips, listings of 

awards and proposals funded, and 

other information. 

Once again, the Journal continues 

on a timely publication schedule with a 

one-year lead time on manuscripts 

available for publication. Fifleen 

papers are in various stages of review 

and revision for publication during 

1 ( )N2-S;S. 

Index Medicus 

In Novembei. 1 C JS1. the Journal received 

notification concerning its reap 

plication for Inclusion in Index Medi 

cus. Ninety five journals had been 

evaluated for Index Medicus. and 2'A 

had been -elected; JOE was not one 

of those accepted at this time. The 

reason given was the same as noted 

upon previous application: that the 

Journal was less needed by the user 

community served by Index Medicus 

than those journals currently being in 

dexed. It further was noted that reapplicaiion 

could be made after a two 

year interval. It is the Journal's intention 

to reapply for inclusion after the 

staled two year period. 

Distribution and 

Subscriptions 

In addition to the annual review and 

update of the JOE mailing list, the 

mailing list was converted to the 

WANG word processor this past year. 

Mailing labels now can be printed 

directly from three lists which will 

greatly facilitate preparation of bulk 

mailings. In addition, billings, renewal 

notices, and additions, corrections or 

deletions to the mailing list can be 

made in a much more efficient, effective 

manner. 

With the steady rise in production 

and mailing costs for the Journal. 

serious consideration also is being 

given to raising the annual subscription 

rate. Further study will be marie of 

JOE costs during the next year, and a 

notice of an increase in the annual 

subscription rate may be forthcoming. 

! .V.'".-i'r !) i , ':.'."''' 11 ,. 

, ":. , 'i.'. : n'li-.'c v,' rv''*:iirii! nl 

:!„ ()>:;.•.••:i :>;< / .iii.i'> /\«.«.nr ••I:.WI ,()/ A; ;v- 

V/.N ItH.-, 7

Officers 

Board of Directors 

Member Institutions 

President: 

Willard B. Bleything. O.D.. M.S. 

Dean. Pacific University. College of 


President-Meet. 

Richard I.. Hopping. O.D. 

President. Southern California 


Vice-President-. 

Edward R. Johnston. O.D.. M.P.A. 

President. State University of New Yoi 


Secretary-Treasurer 

Jack W. Bennett. O.D. 

Dean. Perris Slate College 


Immediate Past President- 

Alfred A Rosenhloom. Jr. 

O.D.. M.A. 

Illinois College of Optometry 

Councils 

Council tin Academic Affairs- 

Douglas Poorman. Ph.D. 

Southern California College of 


Council on Institutional Affairs: 

D. Leonard Werner, O.D. 


Slate College of Optometry 

Council on Student Affairs. 

James Noe. M.A. 

The Ohio State University 


William R. Baldwin. O.D.. Ph.D 

Dean. University of Houston. 


Jack W. Bennett. O.D. 

Dean. Ferris State College. 


Willard B. Bleything. O.D.. M.S 

Dean. Pacific. University. 


Jay M. Enoch. O.D . Ph.D. 

Dean. University of California. Berkeley 


Spurgeon B. Eure. O.D.. M.A. 

President. Southern College of 


Gordon G. Heath. O.D.. Ph.D. 

Dean. Indiana University. School of 


Frederick W. Hebhard. O.D.. Ph.D. 

Dean. The Ohio State University. 


Richard I.. Hopping. O.D. 

President. Southern California 


Edward R. Johnston. O.D.. M.P.A. 

President. Stale University of 

New York. State College of Optometry 

Henry B. Peters. O.D. 

Dean. University of Alabama in 

Birmingham. School of Optometry 

The Medical Center 

Boyd B. Banwell. O.D.. D O.S. 

President 


F Dow Smith. Ph.D. 

President. The New England 


Melvin D. Wolfberg. O.D. 

President. Pennsylvania College of 


The University of Alabama in 

Birmingham 

School of Optometry The Medical 

Center 

l l )l') Seventh Avenue. South 

Birmingham. Alabama 35233 

University of California. Berkeley 


101 Optometry Building 

Berkeley. California 04720 

Ferris State College 


Big Rapids. Michigan 4 ( >307 



3801 Cullen Boulevard 

Houston. Texas 77004 


3241 South Michigan Avenue 

Chicago, Illinois 606 Hi 



Bioornington. Indiana 47401 

Inter American University of 

Puerto Rico 

Fernando Calder 463. Hato Rey 

G.P.O. Box 32f>o 

San Juan. Puerto Rico 00936 

University of Missouri St. Louis 


S001 Natural Bridge Road 

St. Louis. Missouri 63121 

University of Montreal 


3333 Queen Mary Road "350 

Montreal. Quebec, Canada H3C 3J7 

The New England College of 


424 Beacon Street 

Boston. Massachusetts 021 lo 

Northeastern State University 

Division of Optometry 

College of Arts and Sciences 

Tahlequah. Oklahoma 74464 

State. University of New York 

Slate College of Optometry 

100 East 24th Street 

New York. New York 10010 

28 •limrihil iif Onumwir.c f-Wnc'dlioii

Member Institutions 

(continued) 

ASSOCIATIOl 

COLLEGES Of 

FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

«M 

;siooL& 

METRY, IMC. 

June 30 s 1982 

(UNAUDITED) 

The Ohio Stale University 


33S West Tenth Avenue 

Columbia. Ohio 43210 

Pacific University 


Forest Grove. Oregon 97110 

Pennsylvania College, of Optometry 

1200 West Godfrey Avenue 

Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19141 

Southern California College of 


2001 Associated Road 

Fullerton. California 92031 

Southern College, of Optometry 

1245 Madison Avenue 

Memphis. Tennessee 92031 

University of Waterloo 


Faculty of Sciences 

Waterloo. Ontario. Canada .N2L 3G1 

ASSETS 

Cash Checking 

Inlercapital Liquid Asset Fund 

Furn.. Fixtures & Equipment 

Less Actum. Dep. 

Automobile 

Less Accum. Dep. 

AR from Gov"i Contract 

Expenses 

Prepaid Insurance 

TOTAL ASSETS 

SI 1.1 IS.40 

3. Shi.51 

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 

Payroll Tnxe.« Payable 

A- P Student Endowment 

Fund 

Fund Balance 

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND 

FUND BALANCE 

9.S59.52 

2.464.00 

> 1.172.31 

12r>.oI3.4o 

7.250.89 

7.395.52 

93. Of, 

39.1.00 

i 110.03 

.2S 

141.S14.S2 

S141.92o.73 

fI41.92fi.73 

About the Association 

National Office Staff 

The Association of Schools and Colleges 

of Optometry (ASCO.) is a non 

profit, tax exempt professional educa 

tional association representing the professional 

programs o! optometric 

education in the United States and 

Canada. Continuously training nearly 

4.000 students, the schools now 

graduate upward of 1.000 qualified 

doctors of optometry per year. 

ASCO incorporated in 1972 and 

established a National Office in 1974. 

The National Office provides a wide 

range of services to the schools and 

represents optometric education to the 

public and the health community. In 

addition, it maintains cognizance over 

legislative and national affairs and provides 

counsel and comment to policies 

and programs affecting optometric 

education. 

The association has established 

three major councils in the areas of 

Academic Affairs. Student Affairs and 

Institutional Affairs. These councils 

review and recommend policy deci 

sions concerning issues of importance 

to the Board of Directors. In addition, 

they maintain ongoing activities in 

their respective areas of responsibility. 

In 1975. ASCO spearheaded the' 

publication of the -Journal of Op- 

Loniutric Education. Now entering its 

eighth year of publication, the -Journal 

is the only publication in the U.S. today 

devoted entirely to the educational 

concern-; of the profession. 

Headquarters 

Association of Schools and Colleges of 


000 Maryland Avenue. S.W. 

Suite 410 

Washington. D.C. 20024 

(202) 4S4-9400 

Lee W. Smith. M.P.H.. Executive 

Director 

Harriet E. Long. Assistant to the 

Executive Director and Managing Editor. 

Journal of Optometric Education 

Charlotte M. Ahrendts. Secretary to 

the Executive Director 

i nc W iSrn.'fli 

Vrjkuiit' S. Sitmher J • Summer TIS'A 29

Keeping Up 

with People. 

(continued) 

lege of Optometry (SCCO) are Robert 

O. Dundas, O.D., Chris T. 

Tasulis, Jr., O.D., Richard F. 

Fixa, and James O. Perez. 

Dr. Louis J. Katz, Illinois College 

of Optometry (ICO) Alumni Council 

vice president, has been awarded the 

community service award by the 

Chicano Federation of San Diego 

County. Two ICO faculty members recently 

promoted from assistant professors 

to associate professors with contract 

tenure are Dr. Janice Jurkus, 

chairman of the division of optometric 

sciences, and Dr. Gary Porter, chairman 

of the division of basic sciences. 

The ICO Board of Trustees also created 

a professor emeritus position on the 

ICO faculty and named Dr. E.R. Tennant 

to the honor effective upon his retirement 

June 1, 1982. 

Dr. Alfred A. Rosenbloom, Jr., 

former president of ICO, began an administrative 

sabbatical leave June 30 for 

one year, and has been invited to head 

a Symposium on Optometric Education 

in Manila and Cebu, Philippines, in July 

following the 4th Asian-Pacific Optometric 

Congress. 

Dr. Robert N. Kleinstein, associate 

professor of optometry and public 

health and assistant professor of 

physiological optics, has been named 

chairman of the Department of Optometry 

at the University of Alabama in 

Birmingham (UAB) School of Optometry. 

The dean of the UAB School of Optometry. 

Dr. Henry B. Peters, has 

been named Optometrist of the South 

by the Southern Council of Optome- 

FACULTY POSITION 

SCHOOL OF OPTOMETRY 

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA 

IN BIRMINGHAM 

Av.r.iiinh. .:!•• :i,-.-.i •: |-;i !^ n -. 

i-iv's. i :• 

I't.vjc-i., ."lie O [; .;• ,; :'h [) • •.••;',..'- .=. :•• !':•-. ••, 

lliis.:,!,.-. -" i' ( ) 1 i .!.•(_•:.',• ,..|||- i \|)f'ii';i: .' -1 /n 

•.:•.•••! :i:ri|i.i:>"! .••• :\w HIII.T -"I-I: ••.. K-n '•».!• ' 

-.•l:iv. *'j nr-i.'MM.ii: i- A.': .. j,- .!:i ii-,5 •- ,i ." • jr H.Jv K..' r -K • 

»i-.i.>. i.-' I i;i|..- ic r> 

[Iif M. ••:..:.(. •,-,T ''i 

•-•ii-r. •• .V.r-ni-N' .i Kirr.-.j 1 -,!-: I .'• n-r--. 

N •:•:•.. H.m -.;• ;•-• A!.-^ ::i .• ;•.:;":. :•. • .'. 

.Vnv!.!•.-::Hi- N-:> 

.«"•• .0--.- 

Marilyn Hinkle (left), 1981-82 education-research trustee, presents the Auxiliary to the American Optometric 

Association's annual educational grants to (1 to r) Elwin Marg, Ph.D. (accepting for Drs. Anthony 

Adams and Kenneth Poise); Jerome Sherman, O.D. (accepting for Drs. Arkady Selenow and 

Kenneth Ciuffreda); and Steven Matthews, O.D. 

trists. Dr. Terry L. Hickey, UAB 

associate professor of physiological optics, 

has been appointed a member of 

the Vision Research Program Committee 

(VRPC), advisory to the National 

Eye Institute and the National Advisory 

Eye Council, for four years. Dr. Jimmy 

D. Bartlett, associate professor of 

optometry at UAB, has been appointed 

abstracts editor for the Journal of the 

American Optometric Association. 

A $3,000 research grant from the 

Auxiliary to the American Optometric 

Association was awarded to Drs. Anthony 

J. Adams and Kenneth A. 

Poise of the University of California, 

Berkeley, School of Optometry, for 

their project, "Visual and Ocular Side 

Effects of Radial Keratotomy." In addition, 

Drs. Arkady Selenow and 

Kenneth J. Ciuffreda of the State 

University of New York, State College 

of Optometry, received a $3,000 research 

grant for their project, "Vergence 

in Infants at Risk of Becoming Strabismic," 

and Steven M. Mathews, 

O.D., received a $3,000 fellowship in 

support of his Ph.D. candidacy in vision 

science at the SUNY College of Optometry. 

• 

SOUTHERN COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 

SEEKS PRESIDENT 

to succeed Dr. Spurgeon B. Eure. who has announced his retirement, effective 

June 30. 19H4. 

The Doctor of Optometry, or equivalent degree, is an essential requirement. 

Advanced degrees in other disciplines are desirable. 

Applicants should h.wc an experience profile which includes: Clinical 

experience: management of people: organization: administration financial 

planning and control preferably in the field of education: and contacts with 

government agencies and legislative bodies. 

The president-elect will begin employment in 1°-K3. preferably on July 1: 

with assumption of the presidency on July 1. l')84. 

Qualified applicants are invited to send a comprehensive resume before 

November 1. VM2. to: 

Search Committee, c. o EVP 


P.O. Box 45 l ) 

Memphis. TN 38104 

EOE 


4*h International 

Symposium 

On Contact Lenses 

Quebec Optometric 

Association 

614 St. Jacques St. West 

suite 302 

Montreal, Quebec 

H3C 1E2 

(1-514-849-8051) 

ONE OF THE MAJOR EVENTS IN THE 

- ^ OPTOMETRIC WORLD ^g- 

RITZ CARLTON HOTEL 

OCTOBER 9-10, 1982 

Ff^V^: A 

V 

YOU WILL^p MONTREAL 

THE BEAUTIFUL "PAR EXCELLENCE" 

TOPICS: 

SPEAKERS: 

Dr VINCENT POTTS, O.D. 

Michigan 

RICHARD M. HILL, O.D. 

Ohio 

NED PAIGE, O.D. 

Ontario 

NEALJ. BAILEY, O.D. 

Ohio 

BENOIT KEMP, O.D. 

Montreal 

• Extended wear. 

• Orthokeratology, 

PANEL MODERATORS: 

• Toric soft contact lenses, 

• Radial keratotomy, 

MELVIN REMBA, O.D. 

California 

LEROY MESHEL, M.D. 

California 

STEVE SCHOCK, O.D. 

H. WALTERS, O.D. 

KLAUS VOERSTE. O.D. 

Germany 

MAURICE G. POSTER, O.D. 

DANIEL BRAZEAU, O.D. 

JACQUES SEVIGNY, O.D. 

• Bifocal soft contact lenses, 

• New and future in contact lenses, etc... 

• Corneal vascularisation and contact lenses 

etc... 

• STATE BOARD APPROVED 

• PANEL DISCUSSION 

• EXHIBITS 

• SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION 

• SPOUSES PROGRAM 

&

W&Bffi 

^8% 

"kj , * , i*v**£sfc 

*5*^?^ 

J 

*****>'*>**~ 

& * , • 

A successful optometrist needs 

two things. The Army offers both. 

Experience: your future 

in optometry depends on 

the experience you can accumulate. 

And you'll get more 

experience in your first term 

in the Army than some optometrists 

do in a lifetime. You'll 

see and treat all kinds of eye 

problems to gain the skills and 

proficiency that build a rich 

and rewarding career. 

Independence: you can 

also avoid the heavy start-up 

costs of space and equipment 

for a civilian practice. 

Instead of debts, the 

Army will give you officer's 

pay, plus special pay as a 

Doctor of Optometry, plus 

housing allowances, family 

health care, 30 days paid 

annual vacation. 

And you'll wind up with 

the means to finance a future 

of your own choosing. 

If this practice sounds 

inviting, get all the details. 

Write: Army Medical 

Opportunities, P.O. Box 7711, 

Burbank,CA91510. 

Army Optometry. It deserves a closer look. 

ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS 

AND COLLEGES OF OPTOMETRY 

600 Maryland Ave., S.W., Suite 410 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

Non-Profit Org. 

U.S. POSTAGE PAID 

at Wash., D.C. 

Permit No. 46070

JOURNN. OF - Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?